#Bausset

[josefavomjaaga]

I’m biased of course but

Eugène being ordered to marry a coffee mug casually informed of himself being betrothed, and for a first visual impression being told “please see enclosed coffee mug”

after having first learned of the engagement from the postman

while the bride wrote a tearful letter to her father, declaring she would sacrifice herself for the fatherland, asking for her dear Papa’s blessing in order to have the force to endure her dark fate

and all the rest of this marriage, up to Napoleon specifically telling Julie Bonaparte (Joseph’s wife), what the wedding gifts she was supposed to send had to cost

Funniest Napoleonic Era moment GO

[handfuloftime]

I once read that Napoleon did not allow anyone to know him intimately. Even for those who were around him all the time.

Do you think this applied to Duroc? Why or why not?

That's an interesting question--I suppose it depends on how you want to define 'intimately'!

Certainly the nature of Duroc's job meant that he spent a great deal of time with Napoleon, and was heavily involved in managing his day-to-day life. I've always thought that Philip Mansel's description (in The Court of France 1789-1830 (1988)) is a good succinct summary: in his view, Duroc "organized Napoleon's life, and was one of the most important people in it". Of course there were a huge number of people involved in keeping the imperial household--and the Empire itself--running, many of whom, as you say, were around him all the time. However, Duroc's involvement in Napoleon's life went well beyond his official roles, most notable with his oft-remarked ability to influence Napoleon's opinions and decisions (Louis-François-Joseph de Bausset, who as one of the Prefects of the Palace worked closely with both Duroc and Napoleon, described Duroc as Napoleon's conscience). And he was tasked with activities that were definitely not part of his job description and touched on a more private side of Napoleon's life: carrying notes to Marie Walewska, for example, or retrieving letters Napoleon wrote to another mistress. Bausset claimed that "Napoleon had no secrets from [Duroc], while he had them from everyone else, even the prince of Neufchâtel [Berthier]".

Philippe-Paul de Ségur, who worked for Duroc in the Maison impériale, described him in his memoirs (Histoire et mémoires, 1873) as:

"Napoleon's most intimate confidant, his most devoted servant, his firmest friend; they were so closely associated by nature, by habit, by everything, that we no longer imagined that they could live apart: it appeared to us that fate couldn't tear one away without mutilating the other!"

And while Ségur's description of how inseparable they were is particularly vivid--and serving a literary purpose, as it leads right into his account of Duroc's death--he's far from the only person to remark on their closeness. So by dint of both the nature of the Grand Marshal's job and the trust that Napoleon had in him specifically, he did have an unusually intimate position in Napoleon's life.

This also gets into the question of where Napoleon Bonaparte, the person, stops, and The Emperor Napoleon begins. Emmanuel de Las Cases claimed that "it was to the private man above all that [Duroc] was devoted, far more than the monarch". (And speaking of Las Cases, he also wrote that "the Emperor told me that Duroc alone had his intimacy and possessed his entire confidence"--though as with everything Napoleon said on Saint Helena, when his myth-making was in full swing, that should be taken with a grain of salt.) Writing to Marie Louise after Duroc's death, Napoleon remarked that "he had been my friend for twenty years"--their relationship had begun well before Napoleon seized power. So there's that level of intimacy as well: recognizing and loving the man behind the complicated performance and power of the Emperor.

[joachimnapoleon]

Napoleon had one defect, which arose from the kindness of his nature. He knew not how to detach himself from those who had held the highest places in his Confidence and government. In the first moment of a just resentment, he thought that he ought to break with them altogether; but this feeling over, he endeavoured to compensate the loss of his favour and even of his esteem, by concessions of another kind, when in his power, and especially when the objects of his resentment had done him real services. Fouché had almost always been necessary on account of his great knowledge of the manners, principals, wishes, and interests of the various factions who had attempted to shake the country. He had always mixed in them, as a judge and a spectator, and, it has been said, as an accomplice also. Napoleon too often forgot that the head of a new dynasty ought, according to circumstances, to load with favours the man who is devoted to him, or overwhelm with contempt the one who proves himself unworthy of confidence. He did not bear in mind, that, according to the views of sound policy, there exists no medium between power and weakness. Temporizing measures and precautions are but a feeble plastering which the slightest blow destroys. Names and examples would not be wanting, were it necessary to prove my assertion.

Source: Private Memoirs of the Court of Napoleon, by Baron Louis-François-Joseph de Bausset-Roquefort.

[joons]

"'...what he was chiefly anxious about was the care of the wounded.' When his horse trod on a dying Russian, Napoleon reacted by 'lavishing the attentions of humanity on this unfortunate creature', and when one of the staff officers pointed out that he was 'only a Russian' Napoleon snapped back, 'After a victory there are no enemies, only men.'"

Napoleon: A Life, Andrew Roberts, quoting Baron Louis-François-Joseph de Bausset-Roquefort's Private Memoirs of the Court of Napoleon

[josefavomjaaga]

hey, re: one of your latest posts, is there any merit whatsoever to the rumours that napoleon had an affair with his stepdaughter? and if not, why did they arise?

[Muttering under her breath - I never should have opened this can of worms… why can I never keep my mouth shut...]

Well, hi and thank you for the question. 😁

Okay, first of all: No, I do not think there is a single serious historian today who actually believes the rumours about Napoleon being the father of Hortense‘s oldest son. And while I don‘t like Napoleon much myself I also don‘t believe it. Napoleon‘s early letters, particularly from the time of the Consulate, to Hortense are a fun read and show a (step-)father talking to his daughter, and that‘s just that. The child was born ten months after Hortense‘s marriage, so there is no reason to even assume the father was anybody but Hortense‘s husband.

Does it rule out the possibility? No, of course not.

According to Hortense‘s memoirs, the first rumours of this kind came from British newspapers. Which is quite possible, as the Peace of Amiens was shaky from the beginning and some parties were actively working to break it up. There were nasty rumours and disparaging pamphlets galore. Also according to Hortense, Napoleon was secretely quite content about this, as he suspected this nephew might be more easily accepted as Napoleon‘s successor if people supposed Napoleon to be the father. Later, it‘s the pamphlets by Lewis Goldsmith, an Anglo-French publicist working for both sides, who repeated and invented the most disgusting slander (including incestuous relationships).

In truth, there are some passages from Laure Junot‘s memoirs (for what those are worth, of course!), relating to the time of the Consulate, describing how Napoleon entered Laure's bedroom in Malmaison at nights and how he got really furious when she locked her door, to the point she insisted Junot spend the night with her at Malmaison. This would point to Napoleon really taking some liberties with the young ladies of his entourage. That Napoleon in general was not the most virtuous of husbands is a well-known fact, even if we do not have to go as far as Bausset, who years later in a fit would claim to Marie Louise that Napoleon »had had every lady of her court for a shawl« (except for Madame de Montebello, for whom it took three).

Hortense, from 1808 on and with a short interruption in early 1810 stayed, far away from her husband, in Paris at court and at the least lived a life in a dubious position for a married woman. She had one lover she admits to in her memoirs (Flahaut), but all her life she loved to be surrounded by a circle of admirers, so she was rumoured to have many more. The birth of future Napoleon III gave reason to much gossip in Paris and was the reason why Louis broke with Hortense completely. Apparently, everybody and their grandmom was convinced Louis was not the father, despite pretending the opposite. At the very least, Hortense was the only one among the not-altogether-virtuous Imperial ladies who managed to get herself so deeply into trouble that she had to secretely escape to Switzerland in order to give birth to a child. But even that cannot have been all that much of a secret later, considering that the Duc de Morny was openly talked about as being »né Hortense«.

Many memoirs of the time mention or hint at the rumours about Napoleon's alleged affair with Hortense, and the vast majority declare them as false. The only important memoirs that I know of that explicitely confirm them are Fouché‘s. But those are, while not entirely apocryphal, of dubious authenticity, as they were published after his death under the Bourbon Restauration, put together from Fouché‘s papers. The Bourbon Restauration again produced an abundance of pamphlets and of course jumped at the occasion to repeat these allegations over and over again.

To sum up: There were plenty of rumours already during the Empire, and neither Napoleon‘s nor Hortense‘s personal way of life did much to disencourage them. There is, however, also not a single piece of evidence for them to be true. I'm not sure if this really answers your question, and I wish there was a way to disprove them entirely, but this is the best answer I can give. If anybody has additional information, I'd love to hear it!

As to Napoleon, he on Saint Helena dismissed the idea of an affair with his stepdaughter at one point as stupid because »everybody knows Hortense is ugly«.

Well, thank you, I guess.

[amorcrazy]

Hasith, DJ MacIntyre & Juan Ibañez, Facu Bausset & Xarly Reyes, Guy J, F...

[josefavomjaaga]

This is such a mess.

Word. Nobody among the interviewed comes across as particularly intelligent or deep-thinking. (Which of course also could be due to the person conducting the interview and taking notes.)

Regarding the “divorce scene”: Of course they would dumb it down to that level. Now I wonder: did those in charge even know that we have Bausset’s description of how that scene (allegedly) really went? And did just not care because it did not fit their rather particular view of Napoleon? Or had they really never learned of it? In which case - research for the story script sucked. Sorry.

Regarding the attitude towards museums: Must I pretend to be surprised? And did the fact that things looked rather “small”, boring and normal, not to say “real”, in any way make an impression on him, as far as the grandiosity  of the planned movie was concerned? Did it ever make him think: “Oh, these were actual people. Maybe they had reasons for their actions.”?

I thought I would dislike the movie because it would be historically inaccurate, too loud and too flashy. Now it seems it will be stupid on top of that.

[On Joaquin Phoenix’s performance] “Joaquin studies the psyche, and the psyche of Napoleon is so strange The film feels like that. It’s kind of peculiar, and there’s an intensity in that. Napoleon wasn’t stoic and wonderful like Russell Crowe was in Gladiator. He was a dictator, a war criminal, really. It couldn’t be rousing, because that man killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men, in my opinion needlessly. And for what? To get an empire, for what? In the end, it all disintegrated anyway. That psyche run wild is dangerous as hell, and very strange. And this is a portrait of that.”

—Vanessa Kirby

[Phoenix’s visit to Napoleon’s tomb, and to the military hotspots] ” I went to all the museums and, yes, it’s very interesting but, yeah, you’re looking at swords and blah, blah, blah, who gives a fuck. I mean, honestly, I want to make it a great thing to talk about for your piece, but yeah, you walk around and you look at the things and you go, ‘Oh yeah, that is a very small jacket.'”

—Joaquin Phoenix

[On Napoleon and Josephine’s divorce scene where Phoenix slaps Kirby in agreement] “My biggest compliment for any take or scene, is, ‘Christ almighty, where did that come from?’ That wasn’t planned. He just fuckin’ slapped her. She didn’t know it was coming either. The whole room went [sharp intake of breath]. And you know, what could’ve been a boring scene suddenly had magic.”

—Ridley Scott

Trivia: Scott has a super cut that goes into Josephine’s life before Napoleon. So you fans of Josephine, don’t give up hope!

This is such a mess. You have English actors being typical English and hate Napoleon but for some reason want to do a movie about him anyway even though he is a Hitler and Stalin and according to Kirby a war criminal. Fantastic. Nothing like approaching a subject neutrally.

Joaquin isn’t impressed with museums much I see.

Okay Scott, wants us to know that the film isn’t a love letter to Napoleon and he’s a bad dude, they aren’t showing just good things Napoleon did. So instead they will show things Napoleon NEVER did like SLAPPING JOSEPHINE AT THE DIVORCE CEREMONY. It’s not as if Napoleon didn’t do shitty things to Josephine that, if you want to show their dynamic you could go to. Yes, Napoleon did shoot at her swans at Malmaison. Yes, Napoleon did force her into carriage rides when she was suffering migraines. But making stuff up out of whole cloth is infuriating.

So on top of the already inaccurate information out there: Napoleon was racist and shot the nose off the syphinx and shot at the pyramids proves it, Napoleon was short and therefore he had to conquer the world, we can now also get Napoleon was a wife beater. And surprise, the misinformation still comes out of England.

[microcosme11]

Description of Napoleon by a Chamberlain (2/2)

Much has been said about Napoleon's passionate taste for women. Worthy appreciator of their merit and their beauty, it is necessary to believe that he was not exempt from these amiable weaknesses which make up the charm of life, and to which all men pay the same homage ... There is no doubt that a young man, who is just starting out in the world and who fears seeing his first secret betrayed at any moment, has less reserve on this point than Napoleon had. It was never through him, but rather through the women themselves, that his passing inclinations were known; and again I think that their number has been singularly exaggerated. 

We also talked about his taste for tobacco. I can assure you that he dropped more than he took. It was more of a fad, a sort of distraction, than a real need. His snuff-boxes were very simple, oval, in black tortoiseshell, lined with gold, all perfectly alike, and differing from each other only in the beautiful antique and silver medals embedded on the lids. 

Nature had established a complete harmony between his power and his habits, between his public and his private life. His demeanor and his representation were the same at all times, they were inherent and uncalculated. He's the only man in the world who you could say, without adulation, that he grew larger as you approached him. One observation, which will certainly not be forgotten by the still unknown historian who will have to draw the portrait of this eminently famous man, is that he knew how to preserve, without ever letting weaken, his character and his dignity, either when he was surrounded by the bayonets of Europe, or when he was delivered unarmed to the outrages of the jailers of Saint Helena.

Mémoires anecdotiques sur l'intérieur du palais et sur quelques événemens de l'empire, depuis 1805 jusqu'au ler mai 1814, pour servir à l'histoire de Napoléon, par L.-F.-J. de Bausset, v2

[grandvhs]

• male french names list

Oliver Saint-Exupéry

Nicollas Languedoc-Roussillon

Adam Bausset-Roquefort

Marc-Antoine Nicollier

Noël Bourguignon

Michaël Auclair

Natanaël Beaux

Cédric Didier

Cédric Beaux

Jacques Beaulne

Samuel Blanc

Pierre-Antoine Hachette

Michaël Suchet

Matthieu Plessis

Christophe Trudeau

Jean-Pierre Beauvau

Léo Clérico

Natanaël Beauvilliers

Michel Fétique

Dominique Popelin

Mathieu Loup

Jean-Charles Trémaux

Matthieu Pelletier

Isaac Asselineau

Damion Suchet

Michael Blanc

Yvon Dimont

Gérald Blanchet

Louis Nicollier

Lucas Pasquier

Luc Calvet

Gabriel Schaeffer

Vincent Geffroy

Cédric Bossuet

Samuel Lemoine

Cédric Boulle

Alex Bittencourt

Mickaël Compere

Lucas Gaume

Nathan Auger

Dimitri Joubert

Félix Cartier

Lucas Bernier

Olivier Bureau

Phil Barnier

Matthias Cellier

Auguste Lavigne

Cédric Rémy

Lucas Deschanel

Cédric Boutroux

Laurent Gaudin

Matthieu Blanc

Christian Delafosse

Matthias Delsarte

Michel Édouard

Éric Michaux

Xavier Couvreur

Christopher Geffroy

Dominique Riqueti

Victor Verninac

Lucas Bourguignon

Luc Mallet

Michael Yvon Verninac

[northernmariette]

Happy Birthday, Marshal Mortier!

So it’s Tall Edouard’s birthday, and Gallica is kicking up a fuss on my very old computer. The result: I can’t access the passages on Gallica I wanted to translate and post. All I have for the time being is this short little tidbit I saved ages ago, without noting - doh! - who wrote it. It might have been Bausset, but I’m really not sure. All I know is that at some point around 1800 or shortly thereafter, the writer traveled back with Mortier, whom he singles out, and two other people (Narbonne being one of them?) from Italy to Paris. I’ll try Gallica again later. In the meantime, here is my puny offering:

Rien n'égala  la douceur, l'esprit, la gaieté et les manières simples du duc de Trévise. C'est à cet excellent et noble guerrier, que j'ai dû de perdre les préventions qu'on n'avait cessé de me donner sur le ton impérieux de généraux et des officiers de la maison militaire de l'empereur. Je puis dire avec vérité, et avec toute la sincérité de mon âme, que je n'ai eu qu'à me louer de leur politesse, de leur franchise, de leur obligeance et de leur aménité.

Nothing could have matched the gentleness, wit, cheerfulness and easy manners of the Duc de Trévise. It is thanks to this excellent and noble warrior that I was able to lose the prejudices I had always been taught concerning the overbearing attitude of the generals and officers of the Emperor's military establishment. I can say truthfully, and with absolute sincerity, that I have nothing but praise for their politeness, their candour, their helpfulness and their kindness.

[handfuloftime]

We got together one night in the palace of Medina-Coeli, that [Savary] occupied, the marshal Bessières, the duke of Bassano, the grand marshal, d'Hervas his brother-in-law, and me. The dancers arrived at ten, in costume, with their little guitars and their castanets. We took great pleasure in the lively and animated performance of those Spanish dances. The fandango seemed to me the allegorical scene of passions, flirtations, refusals, sulks, and reunions of love. It's to be presumed that the spectator's imagination supplies everything lacking in the choreographic scenes represented in the theater. It's that invisible understanding, identified and modified according to the character of each spectator, that helps to explain the loud jubilation felt at the first note of the bow that announces the fandango. Of the six that we were, there remains just the duke of Bassano, the duke of Rovigo, and me; the marshal Bessières and the duke of Frioul found a glorious death on the battlefield, and d'Hervas, so filled with spirit and noble feelings, perished in a gruesome accident in Spain. That which we call living is nothing but the arithmetic of losses that we inflict on ourselves and all around us.

 Louis de Bausset, Mémoires anecdotiques sur l’intérieur du palais de Napoléon

[joachimnapoleon]

Napoleon had one defect, which arose from the kindness of his nature. He knew not how to detach himself from those who had held the highest places in his Confidence and government. In the first moment of a just resentment, he thought that he ought to break with them altogether; but this feeling over, he endeavoured to compensate the loss of his favour and even of his esteem, by concessions of another kind, when in his power, and especially when the objects of his resentment had done him real services. Fouché had almost always been necessary on account of his great knowledge of the manners, principals, wishes, and interests of the various factions who had attempted to shake the country. He had always mixed in them, as a judge and a spectator, and, it has been said, as an accomplice also. Napoleon too often forgot that the head of a new dynasty ought, according to circumstances, to load with favours the man who is devoted to him, or overwhelm with contempt the one who proves himself unworthy of confidence. He did not bear in mind, that, according to the views of sound policy, there exists no medium between power and weakness. Temporizing measures and precautions are but a feeble plastering which the slightest blow destroys. Names and examples would not be wanting, were it necessary to prove my assertion.

—Baron De Bausset-Roquefort, Private Memoirs of the Court of Napoleon

[acaainews]

Airbus has appointed Anand E Stanley, a veteran leader in the global aerospace and defence industry, to succeed Pierre de Bausset as president and managing director of Airbus India. Pierre and Anand will work through a transition before the new appointment takes effect on October 1, 2018.

[josefavomjaaga]

Napoleon’s fake letter to Murat

The first edition of Napoleon’s correspondence, published during the Second Empire, lists in Volume XVI on page 450 as No. 13696 a letter that Napoleon allegedly had written to Murat on 29 March 1808, while Murat was staying in Madrid, prior to the “dos de Mayo” uprising and the double abdication of Carlos and Ferdinand at Bayonne. The letter neither fits the content of Napoleon’s other verifiable letters that he did write to Murat, nor Napoleon’s usual writing style.

The historians and editors responsible for publishing the correspondence were probably quite aware that they were dealing with an apokryphe letter, judging from the long footnote they added to it:

This letter, of which no minute, original or authentic copy has ever been found, was first published in the Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène (t. IV, p. 246 et seq., ed. 1823). It has since been given again by M. de Montholon in his Récits de la Captivité, etc. (t. II, p. 451 et seq., ed. 1847). Like M. de Las Cases, M. de Montholon claims to have been told about it by the Emperor Napoleon himself. The authenticity of this document was accepted by M. de Bausset (Mémoires sur l'intérieur du Palais, etc., t. I, p. 151 et seq., ed. 1827); by M. le Duc de Rovigo (Memoires, etc., t. III, p. 258 et seq., ed. 1828); by M. Thibaudeau [...]

And if so many bonapartists with an interest to falsify history in order to make Napoleon look better than he was on this occasion, all agree that this letter is authentic, it must be true. Right?

The letter in question is several pages long, contains endless musings about the situation in Spain and, most importantly, lays the responsibility for the uprising that is about to happen squarely ate Murat’s feet, as Murat he had acted on his own accord instead of on Napoleon’s orders:

I do not approve of the decision taken by Your Imperial Highness to seize Madrid so hastily. The army should have been kept ten leagues from the capital. [...] Your entry into Madrid, by worrying the Spaniards, has served Ferdinand immensely.

This assumption is directly opposed to several - authentic - letters in which Napoleon, of course, sends Murat to the Spanish capital, orders him to get a hold on anything and anybody of importance and to, of course, use violence in case the population revolts.

So, to sum up, apparently Napoleon did take the pain to dictate a fake letter to Las Cases and/or Montholon on Saint Helena, in order to exculpiate himself and pretend that the whole quagmire in Spain had, at least to a large degree, been caused by Murat. Considering that, at the time, Murat was long dead, this is a truly perfidious act from Napoleon, destroying the reputation of a dead former friend.

Or so I thought. And because I thought that, I would like to publicly apologize now. Because I’m convinced, whoever invented this letter, it was not Napoleon: This fake letter is not in the original manuscript of Las Cases. It only shows up in the edition of 1823. So either Las Cases invented it out og his own volition. Or somebody gave him the idea. In any case, before publishing the first volumes of his grand oeuvre, Las Cases had plenty of time to meet with all kind of people who may have uttered wishes or suggestions.

I could come up with at least one name of a former monarch in Spain who was known to not be a friend of Murat’s, whose scruples in telling lies seem to have been underdeveloped and who in certain aspects may have held pretty similar views as those expressed in the fake letter... But that is utter speculation on my part.

[josefavomjaaga]

Oh, thank you for finding this illustration, @napoleondidthat​! My favourite scene from Bausset’s memoirs!

Napoleon was getting tired of moonlighting as a bouncer and having to toss the drunks out.

[microcosme11]

Description of Napoleon by a chamberlain (1/2)

At this period of his life Napoleon was forty-six years old; his height was five feet two inches and a few lines; his head was large; his eyes light blue; his hair dark chestnut; his eyelashes were paler than his eyebrows which were like his dark chestnut hair; he had a well-made nose, and the shape of the mouth was graceful and extremely mobile; his hands were remarkably beautiful and dazzling with whiteness; he had a small foot; but in general his shoes did not show this advantage because the slightest embarrassment was unbearable to him. Besides, he was well made and well proportioned to his size. One of his physical habits that I noticed the most was that he would tilt, with a sudden and rapid movement, the upper body and his head on his right side, and to rest his elbow and his arm there, as if he wanted to raise his waist. This mechanical movement was very slight, and was only remarkable when he was talking while walking. There was nothing imposing about his person. On his broad and lofty forehead rested genius and power. This forehead would have sufficed in another person to express in itself a whole physiognomy. Lightning flashed from his eyes and revealed all his thoughts, all his feelings. But when the serenity of his mood was not altered, then the most amiable smile lit up this beautiful physiognomy, and gave it an indefinable charm, which I have seen only in him alone. So it was impossible to see him without loving him.

 I have already said, in speaking of the simplicity of his tastes, that his only pursuit was limited to extreme cleanliness, and that his ordinary clothes were nothing remarkable. One day, wishing to set an example of a useful encouragement to the manufactures of Lyon, he appeared at one of the circles of the Empress Marie-Louise in a dark-colored velvet attire, with diamond buttons ... He was no longer the same and seemed to me very embarrassed in this costume, new to him. 

Mémoires anecdotiques sur l'intérieur du palais et sur quelques événemens de l'empire, depuis 1805 jusqu'au ler mai 1814, pour servir à l'histoire de Napoléon, par L.-F.-J. de Bausset, v2