Secret Societies
and the French Revolution
together with some kindred studies
by Una Birch, (Una Pope-Hennessy), 1876-1949

London :  John Lane, The Bodley Head
New York :  John Lane Company :  MCMXI
The Ballantyne Press Tavistock Street Covent Garden London

HOWEVER well acquainted men may be with the facts of history, they are not often intimate with its emotions.  The interest in occurrences is not paralleled in strength or popularity by a corresponding interest in enthusiasms, and though some try in dealing with history to feel, as well as to think and see, that sympathy is always rare which can be fired by ideals long discarded and by faiths long dead.  The French Revolution is for many minds but a catalogue of unsuccessful experiments in reform, and in the present day of disillusion it is difficult to realise with any adequate intensity the grandeur and sanctity of the ideals that lay behind that strange series of events.  Now that eyes no longer see a resplendent vision in the future of democracy ;  now that minds no longer expect the millennium in the enfranchisement of man, it is hard even to imagine the attitude of those revolutionary leaders who thought by their doctrines to bring about the kingdom of heaven upon earth.  In France in the year 1789 men seemed, as it were, intoxicated with the thought of their own perfectibility.  It was as though an ecstasy had come upon the soul of the French nation, as though a voice had spoken from the clouds, bidding men to rise and make the great ascent towards perfection.

The Great Revolution began in no selfish scramble for possessions, for its pioneers had their gaze riveted on nobler and less corruptible gains.  The movement was in its inception spiritual ;  men were at first desirous, not of material rights, but of ideal rights ;  and it must be remembered that the axe was not, at the beginning, laid to the root of the ancient tree of Feudalism, under whose dim shadows the people had existed for so long.  The nation that had sat in darkness had seen a great light, and though centuries of despotic years had made men unfit for democracy, yet they were eager with the eagerness of inspiration to rise and live according to the words that rang so grandly in the air, Freedom, Equality, Fraternity !  Born of fear and disappointment was the later rage for destruction and blood, for the love-feasts of the federated bear witness to the spirit in which before the day of disillusion the great ascension was attempted.  The first revolutionaries acted on the hypothesis that man was born good ;  that it was only necessary to break down the conventional social barriers to let goodness everywhere prevail.  The glad festivals and joyous dances of the “ fťdťrťs,” in which Wordsworth took part as he journeyed down the Rhone, seemed almost to justify such an assumption.  But when the moment of ecstasy was past, and the idealists found that their principles were not accepted by every one ;  that their hopes were by many considered vain, they, like the Inquisitors of Spain, did not lose faith in their own tenets, but assumed those who did not agree with them to be in mortal sin and worthy of death.  Their hearts hardened, and they began to violate the liberty they preached.  The oppression and cruelty characterising the second phase of Revolution, which destroyed the Monarchy, but did not establish the Republic, remain a dire and discouraging monument to the betrayal of ideals in precipitate action.

After ten years of empirical government a sudden end was put to all the theories and visions in which the Revolution had had its origin, no less than to the inefficient administration of the Directorate, by the man of marble—Bonaparte.  Already, while commanding in Italy, the Corsican general had shown the home government that he was possessed of an independent and arbitrary temper, for he pursued his own policy, and would submit to no dictation from his official superiors.  During the first Italian campaign he became acutely conscious of his own great personality ;  he said of himself that every day he seemed to see before him new possibilities and new horizons.  His imperious character made itself even more apparent in Egypt.  There, in his contact with the East, he lost all remnants of his earlier beliefs in the goodness of men.  “ Savage man is but a dog ” was the grim axiom in which he summed up his experience.  On his return to France from the Nile, he requested the Ancients to promise that his next command should be that of Paris.  To all outward appearance he held himself aloof from political affairs ;  indeed, up till the coup d’ťtat of the 18th Brumaire, he kept silence in such matters, and seemed more interested in the mystery and worship of the Egyptian temples he had so lately left than in the anarchy in which his country was engulfed.

The state of France was at the time appalling to contemplate :  the nearly impassable roads were infested with robbers, and the crumbling walls of the prisons offered no security against crime ;  the hospitals were hotbeds of disease, and, owing to lack of funds, many sick of various contagious diseases were turned loose on to the streets ;  agriculture was disorganised ;  elementary education hardly existed ;  the national credit was low.  The condition of the capital may be summed up in the one word—chaos.  Not a house was in repair, many in fact were in ruins ;  leaden roofs as well as panels and doors of wood had been removed and sold by the new acquirers of national property ;  the streets were dirty—not a few of them were no better than open sewers ;  it was not uncommon in the dawn to find dead bodies in the roadway ;  crimes of violence were made easy, for streetlighting was as much neglected as every other detail of municipal administration.  The people passionately pursued amusement, and took but faint interest in political life.  Insanity, owing to the unstable condition of affairs, had greatly increased, while the population of Paris had, in ten years, dwindled by about one hundred thousand souls.

On every side men were confronted by an intricate tangle of unadministered affairs.  The orderly warp and woof of old French life was gone.  Amidst the confusion of bankruptcy, agiotage, paganism and crime, it required a genius to discern the strands of vigorous and enduring quality, capable of being woven into a new texture of state.  No one guessed that the short dark soldier moving silently and unobserved among the fortifications and barracks and museums of Paris was the only man who saw the situation as it really was, or who was capable of seizing the opportunity of reducing chaos to order.

The difference between the Faith of 1789, in which the Revolution had its origin, and the Common Sense of 1800, in which the Revolution had its end, is as wide as the space between stars and earth.  The measure of that difference may be expressed in two terms, Madame de StaŽl and the First Consul.  The war of words and deeds carried on by these protagonists from the Consulate to the capitulation of Paris is a study of captivating interest.  It was far more than an enmity between two individuals :  it was the conflict of two epochs of the Revolution—1789 and 1800.  Each champion transcended the limits of personality in so far as they represented converse sequences of ideas and opposed philosophies of life.  Madame de StaŽl stood for Rousseauism, for faith in the innate goodness and perfectibility of man, for belief in liberty as the first condition of progress for humanity.  Bonaparte contemptuously nicknamed her, and those who agreed with her, “ Ideologues,” but with ready wit she called him “ Ideophobe,” and so had the best of the encounter.  The First Consul, though he exploited the doctrine of individual rights to the last degree, was in himself the reaction against Rousseau’s idealism, for he looked upon the human race as a subject for the “ experiments of genius ”—as raw material for the manufacture of empires.

Madame de StaŽl kept a record of her struggle with Bonaparte ;  a few years ago, after the lapse of nearly a century, the authentic text of her manuscript, “ Dix Annťes d’Exil,” was given to an indifferent world.  But that book, which of old had been pictured as the torch of an incendiary, produced no conflagration.  The transient interest of curiosity evoked by it in no way reflected the white heat of the furnace at which it had been kindled.  Throughout the nineteenth century the book had been withheld from the public, except in mutilated form.  Diplomatically deleted by Baron de StaŽl, it was first published two months after Napoleon’s death, and reprints of this emasculated edition appeared at intervals during the fifty years following.  Although, to readers of imaginative sympathy, it is still a living book, it is a failure in so far as it missed its mark, and the chagrin of its author may be guessed at when it is observed how great were the precautions taken by her to prevent its destruction.  Three copies of the manuscript exist at Ch‚teau Coppet :  one in Madame de StaŽl’s straggling and unpunctuated writing ;  another in the writing of Miss Randall, English governess to Albertine de StaŽl ;  and a third, in Madame de StaŽl’s hand, which, for fear the police should seize the other two, was entitled “ Extrait de Mťmoires inťdits du temps de la Reine Elisabeth en Angleterre.  Tirť d’un manuscrit de la BibliothŤque d’Edinburgh.”  In this last copy, Napoleon sometimes figures as Charles II. and sometimes as Elizabeth ;  the Duc d’Enghien is Mary Stuart ;  Savary is Lord Kent ;  Schlegel is M. William ;  Necker is “ my wife.”  The book was begun in 1800, and broken off at M. Necker’s death in 1804.  It was resumed in 1810 under great provocation (the destruction of “ De l’Allemagne ”), and stopped altogether on the writer’s arrival in Sweden in 1812.  No one knew when the book would see the light ;  it was merely written “ to remind the men of a future age how it was possible to suffer under the yoke of oppression.”  The book represents a lively experience, and is not altogether, as some critics have suggested, the product of imaginative hate.  Rather does it appear to be the eloquent cry of a suppressed party, great in the nobility of its ideas and sincere in its love of liberty.  “ The Apologists for Bonapartism have been so numerous that it is well for us to realise how, under that magnificent visible world there lay an invisible underworld of moral poverty and debasement of character, which were the direct results of despotism.”

It has been the fashion to impute mean motives to Madame de StaŽl in her feud against Bonaparte.  Such an imputation seems barely justifiable.  No doubt, as a woman, she was piqued by his rudeness and contempt, but that was far from being the cause of her opposition.  She was ever ready to sink personal considerations in her enthusiasm for morality and justice, and it is not easy to prove that she was an unworthy champion of the causes she espoused.  Bitterly as she opposed his system of, administration under the Consulate and Empire, she never seems to have hated Bonaparte as a man.  Indeed, it is doubtful whether the early admiration which his colossal vitality and ability compelled in her was ever completely extinguished.

The opening words of “ Dix Annťes d’Exil ” are not without nobility, and serve to explain her attitude of mind.

“ Ce West point pour occuper le public de moi que j’ai resolu de raconter les cir-constances de dix annees d’exil ; les malheurs que j’ai eprouves, avec quelque amertume que je les ale sentis, sont si peu de chose au milieu des desastres publics dont nous sommes temoins, qu’on aurait honte de parler de soi, si les evenements qui nous concernent Wetaient pas lies h la grande cause de l’humanite menacee.  L’Empereur Napoleon, dont le caractere se montre tout entier dans chaque trait de sa vie, m’a persecutee avec un soin minutieux, avec une activite toujours croissante, avec une rudesse inflexible ; et mes rapports avec lui ont servi a me le faire connaitre, longtemps avant que l’Europe eut appris le mot de cette enigme, et lorsqu’elle se laissait devorer par le sphinx, faute d’avoir su le deviner.”

Divergent as were the mature views of Madame de StaŽl and Napoleon, in early life their enthusiasms had been the same.  Both had come under the influence, it might almost be called the domination, of Rousseau’s ideas, ideas which, towards the end of the eighteenth century, laid hold, like some doemonic force, of old and young, peasant and aristocrat alike.  Bonaparte, like many of his contemporaries in Italy, Germany, and France, began life as a sentimentalist and dreamer who thought much of the sufferings of men and dwelt deeply on the problem of how to make happiness, which followers of Rousseau thought the goal of life, attainable for all.  Like Werther, he admired the nebulous Ossian, and by the banks of the Nile read Madame de StaŽl’s treatise “ De l’Influence des Passions ” with interest.  Garat called him “ a philosopher leading armies.”  No one in the early days guessed how soon the philosophic mantle was to be exchanged for the mail coat of tyranny.

Both Bonaparte and Madame de StaŽl at different times visited the grave of that unworthy sage who had inspired thousands, and on whose doctrines had been founded the new code of human liberty.  In comparing the accounts of these two pilgrimages we imprint an indelible picture on our memories.  Stanislas de Girardin relates that Bonaparte, on his visit to the tomb of Rousseau, said, “ ‘ It would have been better for the repose of France that this man had never been born.’  ‘ Why, First Consul ?’ said I.  ‘ He prepared the French Revolution.  I thought it was not for you to complain of the Revolution.’  ‘ Well,’ he replied, ‘ the future will show whether it would not have been better for the repose of the world that neither I nor Rousseau had existed.’ ”  In a conversation with Roederer, he once said :  “ The more I read Voltaire, the more I like him ;  he is always reasonable, never a charlatan, never a fanatic :  he is made for mature minds. . . . I have been especially disgusted with Rousseau since I have seen the East.”

Madame de StaŽl’s early enthusiasm suffered no similar change.  To her Rousseau remained an inspiration.  She describes a visit made in girlhood to the shrine at Ermenonville :

“ His funeral urn is placed in an island ;  it is not unintentionally approached, and the religious sentiment which induces the traveller to cross the lake by which it is surrounded proves him to be worthy of carrying thither his offering.  I strewed no flowers upon his melancholy tomb, but I contemplated it for a long time, my eyes suffused with tears :  I quitted it in silence, and remained in the most profound meditation.”

The Revolutionaries of the National Convention regarded Rousseau as their saviour, and an oration made by Lakanal in that assembly begging the citizens to take the ashes of the great liberator out of their lonely grave, and inter them in the PanthŤon embodies the general sentiment of that day.  “ Honour in him the beneficent genius of humanity ;  honour the friend, the defender, the apostle of liberty ;  the promoter of the rights of man, the eloquent forerunner of this Revolution which you are asked to consummate for the happiness of the nations.”  Men’s hearts vibrated in response to this appeal :  the reformer’s remains were carried with circumstance and veneration to the Pantheon :  and his miserable ThťrŤse was granted an annuity out of the public funds.  Not only was Rousseau their present saviour, he was also to be their future religion.  It was not proposed that the PanthŤon should for long contain the sacred relics.  For some while it had been intended that a vast plantation of trees should be made round the Temple of Great Men, “ whose silent shade would enhance the religious sentiment of the place.”  In this august wood a grove of poplars was to surround the monument to the author of “ …mile,” in remembrance of the earlier burial-place in the lake of Ermenonville, “ for that melancholy tree,” since it had stood sentinel at his dissolution, “ had become inseparable from the idea of his tomb.”

In 1799 Madame de StaŽl was but one out of the many lovers of progress who believed in Bonaparte as the hope of down-trodden humanity.  In him she saw the man who was to put the seal to the magnificent promise of the early Revolution.  How could she guess that the campaign in Egypt, which had so fired her imagination, had cured him of any lingering belief in Rousseau’s theories ?  Like the majority of people in Paris, she was ignorant of the opinions Bonaparte at this time held on men and politics.  He was known only as a military genius, not as a civil administrator, and it was vaguely and popularly supposed that he, the child of the Revolution, would take his stand on its three great principles.  All the hopes of all the friends of progress were, on this hypothesis, concentrated in him.  He was to the Liberals of Europe at that moment as the day-star of hope.  Against the horizon of the dawning century, he stood illumined as a herald of better days and diviner deeds.  At his feet, the patriot, the lover of progress, the searcher after truth, the poet, the philosopher, were ready to kneel, as they would not have knelt to any saint.  His was the figure to whom the prayers of thousands went up as to a great deliverer :  from Prussia, still ironbound by the legacy of Frederick the Great ;  from the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire ;  from Italy, toiling under the Austrian yoke ;  from Greece, the fief of Turkey ;  from all who groaned under the old evils of military, feudal, or ecclesiastical despotism.  He was the hero who was to fulfil the heroic ideals of the Revolution, who was to become the missioner of the new freedom.  This was the role for which many had cast him ;  was the role he never accepted.  His new-found destiny enshrined the disappointment in Europe of countless hopes and aspirations.

None of those who assisted in the coup d’ťtat of the 18th Brumaire knew that they were founding an Empire.  Bonaparte’s speech before the Council of the Ancients on the day of his election to the Consulate was disarming.  “ Citizens, the Republic was on the point of perishing ;  your decree has saved it.  We will have the Republic.  We will have it founded on genuine liberty, on the representative system.”  And later he said once more to the Ancients :  “ People talk of a new Cromwell, of a new Cæsar.  Citizens, had I aimed at such a part it would have been easy for me to assume it on my return from Italy, in the moment of my most glorious triumph, when the army and the parties invited me to seize it.  I aspired not to it then.  I aspire not to it now.”  With mild words he began his campaign against liberty.  He himself proclaimed that his desire was “ to close the wounds of France.”  There were to be no more scaffolds, and no more exiles ;  the churches were to be re-opened, and peace was to reign in the land.  Dominical observance once more became the recognised national practice, and the dull decadian festivals were forgotten in an access of new piety.  Every one was sick of theories and principles, and philosophers were blamed for all that had happened.  Disillusion was the malady of the moment.  Ideas were at a discount, and their domination considered hardly less galling than that of the old feudality.  People were tired of a liberty which in practice meant anarchy, and of a brotherhood which had become the symbol of bankruptcy.

In crises, men are apt to choose the one dictator rather than the multitude of councillors.  Calvin was called upon to save Geneva ;  Cromwell to emancipate England.  In 1799 Bonaparte was the necessary man for France.  He alone could reconstruct the country from the ruins of her past.  His polity resembled that of the Catholic Church in so far as it aimed at introducing the outward husk and semblance of democracy, while retaining the reality of autocracy as the kernel of his constitution.  In proportion as his grasp upon the administration became more assured, and government became more despotic, the hearts of the Liberals grew sick with hope deferred ;  their aspirations were choked ;  their dreams were dissipated.  “ This very world, which is the world of all of us,” no longer held the revelation ;  the stars no longer visited the earth.

The First Consul brought men back to facts.  For him the right of man meant the might of man, and in practice the might of one man.  Ordinary people he believed to be in no way fit to govern themselves ;  the anarchic condition of France abundantly demonstrated the futility of such a notion.  He merely expressed the unconscious opinion of many to whom it had long become evident that a people is not suddenly lifted up from serfdom to authority ;  that a nation of slaves is not inspired as if by some divine afflatus with the virtues of free and responsible citizens.  Visions of the immediate apotheosis of man, cherished in the Revolution’s dawn, had gone like a shadow, not even as the shadow of reality, but as the shadow of a dream.  Government for the people by the people was seen to involve a laborious educational course on which men were hardly at the time prepared to enter.  Let the Liberals cherish what faith in humanity they chose ;  Bonaparte was not under the pleasing delusion that man was ready for self-government.  He believed Rousseauism and romanticism to make for bad government, and absolutism to be the ideal constitution.  The sum of the administrative system of the Consulate is too familiar to be dwelt upon.  In theory the liberty of the nation was guaranteed by representation based on manhood suffrage.  In practice the First Consul became a dictator.  He was supported by a Council of State, the Legislative Assembly, and the Tribunate.  These bodies formulated, discussed, and voted upon the laws.  Both the Council and the Tribunate sent three members to represent their views to the Legislative Assembly.  Besides these three bodies, there was a Senate whose business was to “ maintain or annul all acts which are reported to it as unconstitutional by the Tribunate or the Government.”  The Senate, in the first instance selected by the Consuls (though later co-opting fresh members according to its own discretion), selected in its turn from lists presented by the electors, the members of the Tribunate and of the Legislative Assembly.  The presidents of the Cantonal Assemblies, who really controlled the electorate, were chosen by the First Consul from amongst candidates submitted from the cantons.  This centralised method of administration made it comparatively easy for Bonaparte to impress his whole will upon the nation, and to subordinate the welfare of the individual to the perfecting of the State-machine.

The reign of the First Consul had barely opened when Madame de StaŽl began to be agitated by doubts as to Bonaparte’s love of liberty.  Without waiting for decided acts of tyranny, she set herself in opposition to what she believed to be his tendency.  He asked why she could not attach herself to his government, and wondered whether she wanted anything from him ;  possibly the money her father, M. Necker, had lent to the State, or perhaps a residence in Paris ?  He informed her that she might have anything she wished.  “ It does not matter what I ‘ wish,’ but what I think,” she answered, thus throwing down the challenge to the greatest of men.  To one who believed every man to have his price, it came as something of a shock to find that a mere woman was ready to fight, not for advantage but for an ideal.  Madame de StaŽl’s political mouthpiece, Benjamin Constant, made what stand he could against the introduction of absolutism, and in a great speech to the Tribunes reclaimed for their body the independence necessary for its usefulness.  Without such independence, he declared, “ there would be nothing but slavery and silence, silence which the whole of Europe would hear.”  He appeared to hurl defiance at the First Consul, who was greatly incensed.  As a consequence, the press attacked both Madame de StaŽl and Benjamin Constant with violence.  She was represented as the agent of an Orlťanist and clerical conspiracy, and an article in the “ Peuple ” ended in this conciliatory fashion :  “ Ce n’est pas votre faute si vous etes laide ; mais c’est votre faute si vous etes intrigante.”

Not only the Jacobin, but also the Royalist press was ranged against her.  They called her Curchodine (her mother’s maiden name had been Curchod), and twitted her with running after glory and people in high positions ;  with writing on metaphysics, which she did not understand ;  on morality, which she did not practise ;  and on the virtues of her sex, which she did not possess.  Undaunted by this attack and by the cold behaviour of those in society, who desired the favour of Bonaparte, she wrote a defence of theorists and philosophers.  Though the First Consul was inclined to make liberty answerable for all the crimes committed in its name, she at least was anxious to prove herself able to distinguish the beauty of the pure ideal from its caricature in practical life.  In “ De la Litterature consideree dans ses rapports avec les Institutions sociales,” she made an act of faith, “ of inextinguishable faith,” in the law of progress, in the Rousseau view of life, in the perfectibility of man.  It was a magnificent effort, in which she traced the progress of the spirit of man from the days of Homer down to the year 1789.  She confessed how in her pride she had regarded that still recent and momentous year as a new epoch for man, and admitted her present fear that in sober reality it may have been nothing more than a “ terrible event.”  Though ideals had disappeared in that red harvest of lives, characters, sentiments, and ideas, she asserted she could never believe that philosophy to be false which declares for the progress of the race.  Life without such hope of future ennoblement would be but a vain and arid waste.  Fontanes observed that this book presented “ la chimere d’une perfection qu’on cherche maintenant a opposer a ce qui est.”

Factions, jealousies, and class hatreds have often merged themselves in enthusiasm for a common cause.  A national enemy unites the conflicting interests of a country more securely than any constitution, however just.  Bonaparte welcomed the idea of the Italian campaign in 1800, for it would, if successful, contribute to his firmer establishment, and glorify him in the eyes of the French people.  On his way to Italy he called on M. Necker at Coppet.  Madame de StaŽl was greatly impressed on this occasion by his conversation and his personality, and could not understand her father’s indifference to the great man.  Her romantic and generous nature was stirred, and even in the tyrant she could see the hero.  The glamour of meeting the man of destiny face to face, for the moment dispelled her antipathy for all that he represented.  During the lengthening spring evenings by the Lake of Geneva, she watched, after he had gone, the spectacle of the French troops advancing across the peaceful country towards the great St. Bernard Pass, and only faintly wished that he might be defeated, so that his growing tyranny should receive a check.  However, after Marengo the victorious general, “ bruni par la gloire,” returned to Paris to receive the plaudits of the people, and Madame de StaŽl showed herself as anxious to see the popular hero as all the rest of the world.

The progress of absolutism became more rapid after this successful Italian campaign, for the process known as the “ senatus-consulte ” was grafted on to the existing constitution, and by this means the consular will immediately became the nation’s law.  The “ senatus-consulte ” was ostensibly adopted for the purpose of punishing and terrorising those who schemed against Bonaparte’s administration, and the first use to which the new measure was put was to deport a number of Jacobins (said to be concerned in an attempt to assassinate the First Consul) to the Seychelles, Cayenne, and other places.  The list of a hundred and thirty names was drawn up in a hasty and careless fashion, and it was never proved that any of the men banished were in any way concerned with the plot.  Madame de StaŽl was very indignant, and surmised that after such a precedent any act of tyranny might be justified.  In January 1802 another unconstitutional act was executed.  Benjamin Constant and nineteen others were turned out of the Tribunate, and twenty men devoted to Bonaparte were put in their place.  Effective criticism was impossible, for public expression of opinion had been stifled by the suppression of all journals with the exception of thirteen (five of which soon disappeared) as being inimical to the Republic.  Had the Tribunate continued to exist as originally constituted, it might have proved a barrier to the assumption by the First Consul of absolute power.

The Peace of Amiens was a disturbing surprise to Madame de StaŽl.  Andrťossy, the French Envoy, who went to London to ratify the preliminaries of the peace, reported that the English people were delighted at the compact, and that the mob unharnessed his horses and dragged his carriage to St. James’s Palace.  Madame de StaŽl reflected sadly that, if England, the country of the free, recognised the usurper, no country in Europe could protest against his despotism.

Almost more disconcerting both to her and to the Liberals was the formal treaty made between State and Church three weeks after the Peace of Amiens.  In order to celebrate the accomplishment of two such important pacts, Bonaparte arranged that a festival should be held in Notre-Dame.  On Easter Day, 1802, the big bell of the cathedral broke its ten years’ silence.  Amid salvos of artillery and blare of trumpets the Consuls and the rest of the officers of State went in pomp to the festival.  It was observed by the curious that the consular lackeys for the first time wore livery, and that the consular coach was drawn by eight horses.  Within the sacred walls so recently profaned by revolutionary usage Mass was celebrated, and at the Elevation the soldiers presented arms and the drums rolled.  Two orchestras, conducted by Cherubini and Mehul, discoursed sacred music, and thus the terms of peace between State and Church were ratified.  Madame de StaŽl remained shut up in her house “ pour ne pas voir l’odieux spectacle,” which for her was filled with remembrance of the old monarchic days, and the old insolence of royal luxury and oppression.  She and all the friends of liberty in France were anxious that the Catholic religion should not be restored in their country.  Individually she was, like Rousseau, anxious for a State religion, but it was “ en bonne Calviniste,” and though nominally the three Christian confessions and Judaism were put on the same footing by the Concordat, the only significant factor in the arrangement was Catholicism.  Napoleon described religion as order, and there is no doubt that in the Catholic priests he saw serviceable professors of passive obedience, a sort of “ gendarmerie sacree,” that might with diplomacy be converted into one of the firmest pillars of his throne.  It seems as if there must have been to his mind an essentially English savour in Protestantism ;  for when negotiating for the pacification of La Vendťe he asked that twelve inhabitants of the district should be sent, “ pretres par preference,” with whom to treat.  “ Car j’aime et estime les pretres, qui sont tous Franpis, et qui savent defendre la patrie contre les eternels ennemis du nom fran~ais, ces mechants heretiques d’Anglais.”  Bonaparte always said it would have been easier for him to establish Protestantism, and that he had to overcome much resistance in restoring Catholicism as the State religion.  The Council of State received the news of the compact in silence, and neither the Legislative Assembly nor the Tribunate would sanction the measure until their numbers had been reduced by expulsion.  Men felt that by the Concordat “ the most beneficial achievements of the Revolution were undone.”

Madame de StaŽl began to desire some other weapon than her pen to fight the restoration of Catholicism, and she thought that in the person of Bernadotte, who was insanely jealous of his master, she had found one.  This General-in-Chief of the Army of the West affected liberal ideas and intrigued against Bonaparte.  Not content with being in the thick of the conspiracy, Madame de StaŽl urged her colleagues to immediate action, as there was no time to be lost, since “ forty thousand priests would be at the service of the tyrant on the morrow.”  The plot failed and Bernadotte escaped ;  but Bonaparte did not forget or forgive the conspirators.

In the late spring of 1802, Madame de StaŽl was delayed in her journey to Coppet by the death of her spendthrift husband at a wayside inn.  His death was in many ways a relief to her, and with unchecked courage she continued her campaign against tyranny.  Her enemy was about to become Consul for life, which caused her a good deal of anxious thought, and when a pamphlet named “ Vrai Sens du Vote national sur le Consulat ŗ vie ” was printed by her friend Camille Jordan, giving expression to views of Bonaparte that coincided with her own, her pleasure on reading it was so extreme that she thought of rewarding the author by sending him a ring made of her own hair, which had belonged to “ pauvre M. de StaŽl.”  But luckily she remembered before it was too late that Camille was much taken by the fair curls of Madame de KrŁdener, and her pride made her refrain from sending the black ring.

A month later another pamphlet appeared, again expressing her views.  Its name was “ Les derniŤres Vues de Politique et de Finances,” and its author, M. Necker, allowed that Bonaparte was “ l’homme necessaire,” and that the timely choice of a dictator had saved France from serious dangers.  He criticised the constitution of the year VIII., traced in it the whole scaffolding of the future imperial edifice, and declared the present state of government to be but “ the stepping-stone to tyranny.”  He complained that the Legislative Assembly, despoiled of its prerogatives, was unworthy of a free republic ;  and predicted, as his daughter had done in “ De la Litterature,” that the progress of military authority must lead to despotism, and that “ good faith should prevent the keeping of the name Republic for a form of government in which the people would not count.”  It was a book bound to make trouble for its author.  Madame de StaŽl realised this but “ could not bring herself to stifle the swan song which was to sound from the grave of French liberty.”

Every one knew that she was the power behind the book.  In vain she protested that it was the work of M. Necker, and of M. Necker alone ;  no one believed her.  The question, however, soon ceased to attract notice, for the election of Bonaparte to the Consulate for life dulled all interest in other concerns, and the poor hermit of Coppet was lost to sight in the joy with which the election was greeted.  The Empire was accomplished in all but name.

By Lake Leman the temporarily forgotten woman lived lamenting the eclipse of her party.  She tried to console herself with reading Kant.  It rejoiced her to discover that in his works she could find new and noble arguments against despotism and degradation of character.  Unlike her friend Chateaubriand, for whom Nature was the melodious harp on which the unfathomable misery of man was expressed, she had no joy in scenery or changing lights, and could only think and write.  Her novel, “ Delphine,” appeared in December 1802, in Paris, and she waited impatiently under the elms at Coppet for the echo of her success in the capital.  Its vogue was prodigious, for most of the characters were drawn from life.  Delphine was Madame de StaŽl ;  Madame de Vernon was Talleyrand ;  M. de Lebensei was Benjamin Constant ;  ThťrŤse d’Erviers was Madame Recamier ;  the Duc de Mendoce was M. Lucchesim, the Prussian ambassador in Paris.  The book itself was dedicated to “ La France Silencieuse.”  Talleyrand said, “ On dit que Madame de StaŽl nous a representes tous deux dans son roman, elle et moi, deguises en femmes ! ”  Even from the distant Lake of Geneva, arrows found their mark, and wounded their destined quarry.  Bonaparte declared the book immoral, “ vagabond in imagination,” and a mere “ mass of metaphysic and sentiment.”  “ Delphine ” championed Protestantism, and declared against the “ bizarre beliefs of Catholicism.”  It praised the English, it exalted liberty ;  in short, it committed every possible offence against Napoleonic opinion.  Madame de Genlis, whom Andrť Chťnier called “ la mere de l’Eglise,” was particularly angered by its heterodoxy.  She also hated its authoress, and took the opportunity of its publication to excite the First Consul against her and persuade him to exile her.  When Madame de StaŽl arrived in Paris, the decree went forth, in spite of the pleading of her champion and friend, Joseph Bonaparte.  Exile seemed to her as bitter as death itself, and of all the instruments of tyranny the worst.  Heavy of heart she betook herself to Germany, to study its people and its literature.  She had been much attracted to that country by her correspondence with Charles de Villers, and by her perusal of his translation of Kant’s philosophy.  During this new and absorbing experience, her diary of exile was suspended for six years.  Shortly before her departure for Germany, she heard that the truce between France and England was broken, and remarked that Bonaparte had only signed the Peace of Amiens the better to prepare himself for war.  That this was the general impression amongst statesmen cannot be doubted.  Lord Whitworth regarded it as a truce, Pitt as a suspension of hostilities.  In spite of the joy with which its ratification had been received in England, no one was under any illusion as to its durability.

Holland was the real bone of contention, though as a matter of fact no mention of Holland proper was made in the Peace of Amiens.  It was stipulated that Ceylon should be ceded to England, and the Cape restored to the Dutch, but Addington did not insist that the independence of Holland should be recognised in this treaty.  He thought that it was the logical conclusion of the general peace, and the mere execution of the Treaty of Luneville, which expressly guaranteed the independence of the Batavian Republic.  Bonaparte, who had not concluded the Treaty of Luneville with England, thought he would only fulfil the agreements specified in the Peace of Amiens, and that he had no other obligations towards England.  He evacuated Tarento, and therefore expected the English to do their share, and evacuate Malta.  Whenever allusion was made to Holland by the English diplomatists, the French replied by talking of Malta.  The English were civil and conciliatory :  they did not want war.  It was feared that the French did, and early in March 1803 it was announced to the faithful Commons that great preparations for war were being made in France and Holland.  Throughout the summer months Madame de StaŽl observed that flat-bottomed boats were being constructed in every forest in France, and by the side of many of the great roads.  In Picardy a triumphal arch was erected bearing the words “ route de Londres ” upon it.  Alarm was excited by the discovery of letters dealing with Napoleon’s scheme for planting French commercial agents in the great commercial towns of England, although France at that time had no commercial treaty with England.  A letter was intercepted, sent by order of the First Consul to the French commercial agent at Hull, asking for a detailed plan of that port and its approaches.  Suspicions were aroused that these and other isolated discoveries were but threads in a great system of espionage, in which Bonaparte was endeavouring to involve England.

Soon after these alarming incidents, the celebrated scene between Lord Whitworth and the First Consul took place at the Tuileries.  It was not imitated in England, for Andrťossy was still received courteously by the Queen and Court.  As the English Minister for Foreign Affairs stood by the spirit of the Treaty of Lunťville, and Bonaparte by the letter of the Peace of Amiens, war was inevitable.  It began in May with the capture of two French merchant vessels, whereupon all English people in France (and there were over a thousand) were thrown into prison by the First Consul.  Lord Elgin was amongst those arrested, as well as Sir James Crawford and Lord Whitworth’s secretary, Mandeville.  Such arbitrary acts were said to be without precedent in modern history.

From this time forward, Napoleon’s tendency to tyrannous abuse of power became more pronounced.  The worst fears of Madame de StaŽl were realised.  The sudden death of Pichegru, the banishment of Moreau, and the d’Enghien murder showed how unchecked was the course of his action either by his executive or by public opinion.  The comedy of the Empire began to be played in 1804, and the attendance of the Pope at the ceremony of the coronation made it at least appear as though the murder of a royal Duke had been condoned by the Church.  Order had been secured in France at the price of freedom ;  the administrative system was working smoothly, the taxation of the country had been thoroughly reorganised, the civil code composed, the press muzzled, the religions of the land restored.  Napoleon had leisure at last to turn his serious attention to other countries.

In April 1804 Madame de StaŽl had been recalled from her study of the German nation by the news of her father’s illness.  He had been dead a week when she left Berlin ;  but this news was kept from her till she reached Weimar.  His last days were troubled by the reflection that it was on account of the pamphlet “ Les dernieres Vues de Politique et de Finances ” that his daughter was in exile.  With dying hands he wrote to assure the First Consul that she had had nothing to do with the publication of the book ;  in fact, that she had urged him to refrain from giving it to the world.  Madame de StaŽl felt certain that he would attend to a voice which came as it were from the grave ;  but Napoleon had long renounced sentiment, and merely said :  “ Elle a bien d regretter son pere.  Pauvre divinite ! Il n’y a jamais eu d’homme plus mediocre, avec son flon-flon, son importance et sa queue de chiffres.”  A rumour went about that all the exiled were to be recalled at the coronation.  Madame de StaŽl waited vainly at Coppet for the news of her pardon, which never came.  It maddened her to find that nobles, like the Rohans, Montmorencys, and La Rochefoucaulds, were willing to take places at the Court of the “ bourgeois of Ajaccio.”  She wrote to her old friend M. de Narbonne, in whose society her days at Juniper Hall, near Dorking, had been spent, reproaching him with his attitude towards Napoleon, and urging him to show more sense of personal dignity and more loyalty to his old masters.  The letter fell into the hands of Fouchť, chief of police, and Napoleon discovered that his assiduous enemy was actively trying a new method of undermining his throne.  She fell into further disgrace, and after a tedious autumn, spent at Coppet, went to Italy.  Italy disappointed her ;  she would have exchanged St. Peter’s and the Colosseum, the frescoes of Michael Angelo and the statues of Greece, for a good constitution for her adored country.  In Italy she found no real life, only the dream of a past beauty, existing under a blue sky.  Dissatisfied with her impression, she returned, at the end of June, to Coppet, to write “ Corinne.”  Napoleon still kept himself informed of all she did and all she said, and while dictating the plan of the 1805 campaign to Daru, wrote to his untiring policeman, Fouchť, that he is informed that Madame de StaŽl pretends she has his permit to re-enter Paris, but that he is not quite such an imbecile as to allow her to be within forty miles of Paris, when he himself will be at the other end of Europe.

From Coppet, Madame de StaŽl followed with intense interest the advance made by Napoleon’s armies across the Continent.  The liberty of many nations was threatened, but she remained silent, content, maybe, with the work she had already done, in sowing the seeds of Napoleonic hate and distrust in many territories and many hearts.  It distressed her to hear that some of the smaller German rulers held other and more ignorant views of his dominion than her own.  Some of them still thought, as she had done before the Consulate, that it would mean liberty and progress, and on the whole the buffer States along the Rhine were inclined to welcome the advent of a strong Liberal government, such as they conceived would be introduced by the French Emperor.  In consequence many of their inhabitants heard of the victory of Austerlitz and the Pressburg peace without dismay.  The representative of one of the most noble and ancient families in the Holy Roman Empire, Karl von Dalberg, expressed his view of the situation in the following language to Napoleon :

“ Sire, the genius of Napoleon should not confine itself to the happiness of France.  Providence wills that superior men should be born for the whole world.  The noble German nation groans under the evils of political and religious anarchy.  Sire !  Be the regenerator of its constitution.”

Ever since the year of Lunťville, Napoleon had drawn up endless plans for the reconstruction of Germany, and at this time he produced the Confederation of the Rhine, a document whereby fifteen princes of the Empire declared themselves “ separated in perpetuity from the territories of the German Empire, and united among themselves in a particular confederation, called the Confederated States of the Rhine.”  This Rheinbund, having declared its independence of Imperial German control, called upon the Emperor of Germany to renounce his title, and assume that of Emperor of Austria.  In August the German Empire was declared by France to exist no longer.

Napoleon went so far with his plans of reconstruction as to urge Frederick William III. to form a North German Confederacy as a sort of set-off to the newly confederated Rhine Provinces.  This advice exasperated the King, and Prussia at last arose from eleven years of inglorious neutrality, and went to war.

The French Emperor was so fully informed as to the state of Prussian civil and military administration that he wrote to Talleyrand “ The idea that Prussia will attack us singlehanded is so ridiculous that it deserves no further notice.”  The direct result of the revolt of Prussia was the defeat of Jena and the occupation of Berlin.  The secondary result was that the conquest revealed Prussia to herself, and discovered to her that it lay within her power to become the dominant factor in the eventual confederation of the German-speaking peoples.

People of thought in Germany had, in the eighteenth century, been constrained to seek for progress outside their own country.  Madame de StaŽl, in her journey through Germany, was surprised at the knowledge of French liberalism to be found amongst all classes.  Many thinkers considered that France might be the regenerator of Germany, though they were not blind to the fact that in France itself the outcome of the Great Revolution might be the gravest form of reactionary despotism.  There was no patriotism in Germany at this time ;  but when it was discovered that the dominion of Napoleon meant, not liberty, but tyranny, the seeds of national sentiment, so long dormant, began to germinate.

Is it too much to think that Madame de StaŽl, when she threatened to parade through all countries the misery of an exile, and to preach a crusade against tyranny, was partly responsible for the change in German opinion ?  Is it incredible that in her many interviews with men of letters, such as Goethe, Schiller, and Schlegel ;  in her talks with politicians, like Gentz and Stein ;  her conversations with royalties, like the Queen of Prussia, the Duchess of Saxe-Weimar, the Russian Czar, she should have influenced foreign views of Napoleon ?  She knew every one ;  she had suffered greatly ;  she was an effective enemy.  It is hardly hazardous to assume that in her really triumphal procession through Germany, she helped the men of thought and the lovers of liberty and progress to realise what the conquest of that country by Napoleon would mean.  Queen Louise imbibed hatred of the French Emperor from her ;  at her instigation Schlegel preached against France ;  in Berlin Madame de StaŽl herself announced that Napoleon was a man devoid of virtue and faith—a tyrant.

Affairs soon showed the correctness of her denunciation.  The extortions made for the war-chest, the heavy levies of men, the paralysis of agriculture owing to the withdrawal of carts and horses for military use, the forced loans from the richer citizens, soon caused grave discontent in many parts of Germany, and in the summer of 1806 the steps taken by Napoleon to suppress the publication of hostile criticism on his authority and his army did more to arouse enthusiasm for liberty than either the defeat of Jena or the occupation of Berlin.  The Emperor wrote instructions to Berthier as to the chastisement to be meted out to the six librarians, whom he meant to treat as scape goats for all the political pamphlets and poetic protests that were appearing at the time.  “ They shall be brought before a military commander and shot within twenty-four hours,” ran the order.  “ It is no ordinary crime to spread libels in places where the French army is, in order to excite the inhabitants against it.”  Five of the men selected had their sentences commuted ;  the sixth, Palm, was shot three hours after his sentence had been passed.  Such an event was indeed calculated to excite revenge in the hearts of the writers and philosophers of a country whose single outlet was at that time literature, for it struck a deathly blow at the only freedom left in Germany.  The universities swore to avenge Palm of Nuremberg, and three years later his bleeding image was borne on the standard of the Hussars of Death, raised by the Duke of Brunswick d’Oels.  It may be said without exaggeration that the death of Palm marked the turning of the tide of German feeling against Napoleon.  Gentz, Madame de StaŽl’s friend, wrote of the martyr in a pamphlet, “ Germany in her profound abasement.”  Meanwhile in Spain the standard of liberty was being bravely upheld, and the defence of Saragossa acted as a match to the train of sentiment in Germany.  Palafox became, like Palm, a name of inspiration.  Although Napoleon was deeply engaged in combating liberalism abroad, he did not forget his enemy at home, and when busy re-victualling his troops after Eylau, we find by his letters that he was still concerned with Madame de StaŽl and her machinations.  In five months, ten letters were written to Fouchť, urging him to be more thorough in his persecution of the lady.  Every time the Emperor left Paris, there was a recrudescence of liberal thought, in causing which Madame de StaŽl had a consider able share.  Various small annoyances reminiscent of her power seemed to haunt Napoleon.  At Tilsit “ Corinne,” the new novel, was read and very much admired by the Prince de Neuchatel (Berthier) and his family.  It was a simple novel, as its authoress said, and had no political taint.  “ Bah ! ” said Napoleon ;  “ de la politique !  N’en fait-on pas de morale, de littťrature ? ”

On the barge moored in the middle of Memel river further blows were dealt to the liberty of Europe, for there the Treaty of Tilsit was signed.  Napoleon was at last master of Germany.

Besides the treaty openly signed upon the barge, there were other private agreements made between the contracting parties with reference to England.  It was the secret clauses in the Treaty of Tilsit that occasioned the bombardment of Copenhagen, which Byron and others who had no knowledge of these clauses thought a crime.  The existence of secret articles planning the future destruction of England caused her to maintain her hostile attitude towards France.

During the vintage days of 1807, Madame de StaŽl entertained Prince Augustus of Prussia at Coppet.  She found him distinguished in manner and charming in conversation ;  he was, moreover, patriotic and readily sympathetic with her views about Napoleon.  Admiration for Madame de StaŽl and love for beautiful Madame Rťcamier, her guest, caused the prince to keep up an active correspondence with both ladies after he had left their neighbourhood.  The French Emperor, owing to his splendid system of espionage, read the letters that passed between them, and thereby discovered that Madame de StaŽl’s influence was being exercised to convert the charming prince into a plotter against the existing situation in Prussia.  He caused the suspect to be carefully observed, and in the winter received a report from the Governor of Berlin to the effect that Prince Augustus entertained seditious ideas, and was endeavouring to spread them amongst his compatriots.  The “ Journal de l’Empire,” commenting on the affair and on the source of the prince’s disloyal notions, said he had been at Coppet where “ it faisait de la tour a Madame de StaŽl, et parait avoir puise dans cette derniere residence de forts mauvais principes.”  The enmity of Madame de StaŽl was as untiring as the Emperor’s vigilance, and it began to appear as though the one unconquerable thing in Europe was a woman.

The rest of the Continent appeared supine, and the princes and rulers of its conquered provinces were to all seeming demoralised ;  the Congress of Erfurt, which followed the Peace of Tilsit, was a mournful revelation of their attitude.  They bowed their necks to the yoke and suffered themselves to be treated without honour.  To us who come after, this congress but proves the unimportance of the things that are seen, and the importance of the things that are not seen.  The efforts of the liberators in Europe were having invisible but certain effects, and in 1809 the Archduke Charles gave vent to the suppressed sentiments of the nations, as he addressed the troops he was about to lead into battle against Napoleon, with these words :  “ The liberty of Europe has taken refuge beneath your standards ;  your victories will break the chains of your German brethren, who, though in the ranks of the alien, still await their deliverance.”

With joy and expectation Madame de StaŽl and many other enthusiasts, like Stein, Fichte, Jahn, and Benjamin Constant, listened to the ominous rattling of the Napoleonic fetters in Europe.  The prisoners seemed at last to have realised their desperate case ;  the silence at last was broken.  Madame de StaŽl’s role became increasingly important, for the eyes of many a liberator turned to the shores of Lake Leman for encouragement and inspiration.  Napoleon was acutely annoyed by her correspondence with Gentz, and by the knowledge of all the influential friends she had made and kept in Germany.  By his orders, she was watched even more closely at Coppet ;  her friends were considered as seditious persons, her very acquaintances became suspects.  She said that it seemed as if Napoleon wished to imprison her in her own soul.  To superintend the publication of her book on Germany, she moved to Chaumont-sur-Loire.  Though the censors had passed the corrected proofs, Napoleon, on reading the book before publication, ordered its instant suppression and her immediate exile from France.  Savary told her that it was destroyed “ because it was not French ;”  and Goethe thought its destruction a prudent measure, from a French point of view, because it would have increased the confidence of Germans in themselves.  The last three chapters in the book were those in which, in the name of enthusiasm, she eloquently protested against the spirit of the Empire.  The book appealed too strongly to the passionate though sleeping love of liberty in Europe to make it anything but a firebrand.  It was destroyed for its political tendency, but its merit lies in its being an impression of the world of thought in Germany in 1804.

Back again at Coppet “ in the prison of the soul,” she was visited by the devout and fascinating Madame de KrŁdener and her fellow missionary Zacharias Werner, the Rosicrucian.  Under their influence, she became extremely religious.  Werner read “ The History of Religion ” by Stolberg with her, and when he left Coppet not only had Benjamin Constant come under his influence, but so also had William Schlegel :  both contemplated writing religious works.  Schlegel read Saint-Martin with deep attention.  Madame de StaŽl plunged into the “ Imitation of Jesus Christ.”  At the end of 1810, Coppet might have been the haven of a society of religious.

As her faith grew, she became calmer and almost thought that God, in sending her so many troubles, intended her to be a noble example to her age.  In spite, however, of the consolation of religion, life became more and more difficult at Coppet.  Madame de StaŽl was mortified at every turn.  M. de Montmorťncy, on coming to spend two days with her, received at her house a nicely timed letter of exile in which it was indicated that his friendship with the authoress necessitated this decree.  The letter was delivered to him in her presence, and caused her such agony of mind that she drugged herself with opium.  Madame Recamier, who in answer to repeated invitations was due to arrived at Coppet shortly after this event, was entreated by courier not to visit her would-be hostess, who was in terror lest the same fate should overtake her expected guest.  Madame Recamier, nothing daunted by these warning messages, spent a few hours at Coppet, and then continued her journey.  She was immediately exiled from Paris.  M. de Saint Priest, an old friend of M. Necker, was exiled from Switzerland for holding intercourse with Madame de StaŽl.  Nearly every post brought disquieting news about friends who had been exiled for their relations with her.  In Switzerland every one, from Prefect to Customs Officer, treated her as suspect.  Every one who came to Coppet was watched, letters were intercepted, conversations repeated.  Life became intolerable, but in spite of this, and of a friend’s warning to remember Mary Stuart’s fate,—“ nineteen years of misery and then a catastrophe,” it was terribly difficult for her to abandon Coppet and all its memories.  The idea of gaol was horrible to her.  Some one had told her that one of the bravest defenders of Saragossa lay in the dungeons at Vincennes so unnerved by solitude as to cry all the day long.  Finally she decided to leave the much-loved inland sea, and tried to get a passage for America ;  this was denied her, as also was the permission to settle in Rome, but after various efforts she and M. Rocca, her husband, escaped to Innsbruck and travelled by way of Salzbourg to Vienna.  Their adventures were numerous, and in Austria she just missed being arrested by French spies.  Crossing the Russian frontier on the anniversary of the Fall of the Bastille—that symbol of tyranny—she registered a vow never again to set foot in a country subject in any way to the Emperor.  Since the direct road to Petersburg was occupied by troops, the travellers went south to Odessa.  During this long journey Madame de StaŽl consoled herself by planning a poem on Richard Cœur de Lion, and by the time she had reached Odessa her companions had to use persuasion to prevent her going on to Constantinople, Syria and Sicily, the scenes of his adventures.  Russia held no beauty for her.  The vast wheatfields, cultivated by invisible hands, the sad birch-tree endlessly repeated by an uninventive nature, the rolling steppes, the absence of mountains to arrest the eye, the roadless wilderness, the isolated villages, all seemed to her unutterably monotonous and sad.  She drove all day with fast horses, but the landscape made the journey seem like a nightmare in which, though always galloping forward, she never moved.  The advance of the French armies haunted her.  It was possible that even at the further end of Europe she might be placed in a ridiculous or a tragic position.  Observing the quiet bearded faces of the peasantry and their religious demeanour, she feared that they were the very people to submit themselves with docility to the Napoleonic yoke.  After weeks of driving, she saw the golden domes and painted cupolas of Moscow.  It seemed to her more like a province than a town.  Men were strenuously preparing for the inevitable war.  Self-sacrifice and courage were to be met with at every turn, and Madame de StaŽl became an ardent admirer of the Russian nation.  Count Rounov was raising a regiment at his own expense, and would only serve in it as a sub-lieutenant ;  Countess Orloff sacrificed part of her income ;  peasants were enlisting with enthusiasm.  Entering the Kremlin and climbing the tower of Ivan Veliki, she contemplated Moscow spread out like a map at her feet, and tried to count the minarets and domes of the city churches and of the great monasteries in the plain.  How soon, she wondered, would Napoleon be standing in that very tower, monarch of all that she now surveyed.  A month later Moscow was in flames.  The retreat to the Beresina had begun.

At Petersburg she was received with homage.  The Czar Alexander, who was the pupil of La Harpe, and so imbued with the idealistic view of the Revolution, welcomed her.  Owing to the subjection of Europe, nearly all those persons who were the enemies of Napoleon, French ťmigrťs, Spaniards, Swiss, and Germans like Arndt, Stein, and Dornberg, had gradually been drawn to Russia, and had taken refuge in its capital.  Stein was delighted to hear fragments of “ De l’Allemagne ” read aloud by its authoress one night at the Orloff’s.  “ She has saved a copy from the claws of Savary, and is going to have it printed in England,” he wrote in a letter to his wife.  An eager audience leaned forward in order to lose no word of the last chapter on “ enthusiasm.”  They found it intoxicating.  She spoke as “ the conscience of Europe,” as “ the representative of humanity.”  The Czar flattered her and treated her as “ an English statesman would have done.”  He did not attempt to conceal his earlier admiration for Napoleon or his subsequent resentment at discovering himself to be his dupe.  He deplored the immorality of the tyrant, and shared the view of Roumiantsof, his Chancellor, that it was Russia’s celestial mission to deliver Europe.  He had made up his mind that Bernadotte of Sweden was to initiate the defection of the German princes from French allegiance.  That prince was deeply interested in his adopted country, and hated the notion that it should enter the Napoleonic confederacy.  Just at the time the French were entering Smolensk he concluded a secret offensive and defensive alliance with Russia at Abo, though without pledging himself to immediate action.  Since Madame de StaŽl had so much influence on Bernadotte, Alexander hoped that her approaching visit to Sweden would persuade him to seal his words by deeds.  Travelling by way of Finland, she deplored the dreariness of the scenery.  Dull forests, composed of birch and fir, frowning mountains, granite rocks, “ great bones of the earth,” made her long for the gentler climates of southern Europe.  At Abo she embarked on a “ frail ship ” for Stockholm, and Schlegel remarked on the terror she displayed at the prospect.  Established in Sweden, she began to organise vast conspiracies.  Her house became the home of all Napoleon’s enemies, and the centre of an organised secret service with the European courts.  Madame de StaŽl urged her friends to recall the exiled General Moreau from America to take command of the allied troops against Napoleon, and both the Czar and Bernadotte agreed with her that it would be well to secure him.  Bernadotte was rather frightened by her activity ;  he did not like being rushed into extremes, and he could get neither money from England nor men from Russia to carry out any scheme.  His fears caused him in a little while to send to St. Petersburg to try to undo the newly made treaty.  Meanwhile, no stone was left unturned by Madame de StaŽl that might prove of use to the allies, and in February 1813 a small book appeared at Hamburg, “ Sur le SystŤme continental, et sur ses rapports avec la SuŤde.”  It was a fierce pamphlet against Napoleon and his policy, and a direct invitation to Sweden to join Russia, and to England to deliver Europe from tyranny.  “ England,” it said, “ alone remained afloat, like the ark in the midst of the deluge.”  “ The fate of Denmark was pitiable—could Sweden submit herself to such indignity ? ”  “ Happily, though, that was impossible, since Sweden had committed her destinies into the hands of the Prince Royal.”  Who was the anonymous author ?  The work bore a strange likeness to Madame de StaŽl’s “ Essay on Suicide,” which appeared at Stockholm in 1812 ;  some of the phrases used were almost identical.  People wondered whether it was by her.  Madame de StaŽl protested that Schlegel wrote it, and it was quickly reprinted with Schlegel’s name attached to it.  But every one felt convinced that she was the originator of the little book.  Shortly afterwards she found another opportunity for pleading the cause of liberty by guiding the pen of Rocca in his “ Memoirs of the War in Spain.”  With indefatigable enthusiasm did she seize all opportunities for educating public opinion against tyranny.  When Bernadotte had been finally pushed into action and had left for Stralsund to command the North German troops, taking both Schlegel and Albert de StaŽl in his suite, Madame de StaŽl went to London in order to be a transmitter of news from the centre of all fresh intelligence.

To scheme and plot in public affairs was at the moment the occupation of every important political person in Europe.  The Czar was endeavouring to force Metternich’s hand, and to secure the friendship of Prussia.  The French Emperor was engaged in trying to bribe Austria and Russia to allegiance.  The Austrian Chancellor was watching for an advantage that might give his country a chance of becoming the arbiter of other nations’ destinies.  The intrigues and treaties that led up to the capitulation of Paris before the allies, the history of the diplomacy of the period, is immensely complicated, but at length a net capable of enmeshing the lion was constructed.

Napoleon realised his danger and tried to break the meshes woven by his would-be captors.  He essayed to prevent Prussia from concluding an alliance with Russia by offering to make Frederick William III. King of Poland, and to hinder Austria from allying herself with either Power by the tentative bribe of Illyria.  In spite of his efforts, the nations negotiated among themselves and quietly drew up and signed agreements for concerted action, while expressing outwardly to Napoleon their satisfaction at the existing state of affairs.  In March (1813) war was declared with the avowed object of freeing Germany and breaking up the Rheinbund.  Many treaties were drawn up proposing different terms to France ;  but eventually it was decided to march on Paris, and demand the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty.  The day of retribution had come.

When it was proved, by the proclamation of Louis XVIII., that a great tyranny was at last overthrown, a curious change came over Madame de StaŽl’s spirit.  She was at last free to return to Paris, but on landing at Calais she felt a pang of regret that her old enemy was beaten, her patriotic heart bled after ten years of exile to see Prussian uniforms on the landing pier, Cossacks at St. Denis, Austrians and English bivouacking about the Tuileries, and Russian Guards on the steps of the Opera House.  She hardly recognised her beloved city, and was in despair at this her horrible return.  In spite of her cosmopolitanism she was not denationalised, and France was still the adored country of her soul.  And yet it was the moment of her greatest triumph :  “ En Europe il faut compter trois puissances l’Angleterre, la Russie, et Madame de StaŽl.”[1]  She did the honours of Paris ;  all worlds met at her house.  Throughout her life, faithful to the idea of liberty, and only hating Napoleon in so far as he impersonated despotism, she commiserated him now that he was a prisoner.  Knowing the weakness of the Restoration, the “ Hundred Days ” afforded her no surprise.  Napoleon on his return from Elba said he knew “ combien elle avait ťtť gťnťreuse pour lui pendant ses malheurs.”  He tried to ingratiate himself with her :  “ J’ai eu tort,” he said to his brother Lucien ;  “ Madame de StaŽl m’a fait plus d’ennemis dans son exil qu’elle ne m’en aurait fait en France.”[2]  He no longer ignored her extraordinary influence throughout Europe, nor the power of the friendships she enjoyed with the great of all countries ;  he meant her to be his ally in the future, and through Joseph Bonaparte tried to secure her friendship, and even interested himself in Mademoiselle de StaŽl’s marriage prospects, as a means to this end.  Joseph wrote to Madame de StaŽl in April 1815 :

“ La France est aujourd’hui une avec l’Empereur ;  il veut donner plus de liberty que vous n’en voudrez . . . vos sentiments, vos opinions peuvent auj ourd’hui se manifester librement, elles sont celles de toute la nation, et je me trompe fort si l’Empereur ne devient pas dans cette nouvelle phase de sa vie plus grand qu’il ne l’a ete.”

He went so far as to tell her that he had overheard Napoleon saying that there was no word in “ De l’Allemagne ” to which objection could be taken !

All the friends of liberty in France had imagined that Napoleon would return from Elba in the same mind as that in which he went away.  His new proclamations astonished them.  There was to be no vengeance of any kind.  Benjamin Constant was summoned by the returned Emperor to discuss liberal ideas with him.  It was possible to doubt sentiments, but not acts.  The promise of public discussion, of responsible ministers, of the liberty of the press, and of free elections secured even Lafayette’s allegiance.  Waterloo followed too soon upon this profession for any man to tell what Napoleon would have accomplished with his new policy.  The contest that had lasted for fifteen years was over.  Napoleon went to his island grave, and Madame de StaŽl survived his disappearance but two years.

It must be confessed that Madame de StaŽl and the party to which she belonged judged the condition and situation of France in 1799 less well than Bonaparte.  They believed in democracy as the panacea for all ills, and in the immediate possibilities of the people.  If cynicism consists in seeing things as they actually are and not as they might be, Napoleon was a cynic who, to reduce a turbulent and uneducated mob to order, allowed his policy to justify the worst fears of reasonable as well as sentimental liberalism.  He lacked the understanding of the soul of peoples.  Unlike Madame de StaŽl, who made it her profession to discern that soul, he recognised no important factor in nationality and made the error in his calculations of reducing all men to a common denominator of stupidity or wickedness.  He had a profound contempt for that which constitutes the real wealth of human nature, generosity, enthusiasm, idealism, altruism, and regarded the subjects of such delusions as victims fit for trickery or tyranny.  In Madame de StaŽl he was forced at length to acknowledge a soul made inconquerable by love of liberty and to recognise the strength and permanence of an idealism he contemned.

Napoleon, as it were, summed up in himself the old inflexible ideals of military government.  He might well be called the last of the Romans.  His calm imperial brow bears the ever-green wreath of fame, but it is the fame of an older day, and though it is but a hundred years since he dominated Europe, he ranks with the classic conquerors of antiquity, and not among the passionate experimenters of the modern world.  Madame de StaŽl belongs to another category and may be counted among the prophets.  She believed in the future of the people ;  she believed that acts might one day be co-extensive with ideals ;  and in accord with these beliefs she spoke and lived.  In the long duel she was the victor, for the principles she upheld triumphed.  She clung to her beliefs in liberty, and held that personal dignity springing out of individual freedom is necessary to man if he to be neither a savage nor a slave, and that the independence of the soul founds the independence of States.  These convictions she confessed for many dangerous years in all ardour and sincerity, and every day justifies her protest, for moral and human considerations affect the public conscience ever more and more acutely, and have become since her day a present, and integral part of all politics.  Madame de StaŽl’s lonely cry has been echoed by thousands.  Napoleon was dethroned by the revolt against the old conceptions of government which he embodied no less than by the cannon of Leipzig and Waterloo.

1. Madame de Chastenay, “ Memoires,” vol. ii. p. 445.

2. P. Gautier, “ Madame de StaŽl et Napoleon,” p. 369.