In particular, on December 20, 1808, Fouche suddenly showed up in person at a reception at Talleyrand's mansion. No one could believe his own eyes, especially when the two "enemies", "hand in hand, began to walk from one hall to another."
And these were people who back in October 1808 were considered sworn opponents!
The then Austrian ambassador in Paris, Clemens von Metternich, wrote to Vienna that “these people, standing in France in the first row in public opinion and in terms of influence, who only yesterday opposed each other in views and interests, have become close due to circumstances independent of them. themselves."
Yes, they were completely different. Fouche was a typical representative of the "third estate", and Talleyrand was from the aristocrats. Their mutual antipathy quickly grew into mutual contempt, and this, it would seem, should have blocked any rapprochement. But, as the historian Louis Madeleine very rightly notes, “they turned out to be too politicians in the soul, so that their mutual hatred could sound louder than their interests.
It must be said that by the end of 1808 their interests intersected and the opposition to Napoleon became the point of intersection.
Until December 20, 1808, Fouche never crossed the threshold of Talleyrand's house. What suddenly changed their attitude towards each other so dramatically? It is believed that Alexandre Maurice Blanc de Lanotte, Comte d'Hauterive contributed to their first meeting. He worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at one time spent several years in the United States, knew Talleyrand very well and was even considered his unspoken "right hand". It was he who organized this meeting. Why? Yes, because Comte d'Hauterive was a smart man, having his own opinion on everything. As early as December 1805, he wrote to Talleyrand that Napoleon "seems to have risen above his own ideas."
If he thought so after Austerlitz, then one can imagine his judgment in 1808...
For example, the following words of d’Hauterive about Napoleon are known: “I don’t see how he can come to peace, except by crushing everyone around.”
First, the Comte d'Hauterive spoke with Fouche, then with Talleyrand. And the meeting took place, since by that time both of these people had already foreseen the collapse of the emperor who had risen too high. Accordingly, it was necessary to prepare in advance for this and decide what to do in the event, for example, of the death of Napoleon in the next war. This became the main basis for their rapprochement. And, by the way, their first confidential contact took place in the salon of the Princess de Vaudemont, who until then received them separately.
The meeting at the reception at Talleyrand's mansion was already very serious, and it greatly disturbed Baron Pasquier, a man who, thanks to his businesslike qualities, would soon become the metropolitan police prefect. Naturally, everything was immediately reported to the emperor.
Was it an open demonstration or a conspiracy? Napoleon didn't know yet. But this topic greatly excited him. At any rate, he is known to have told General Clark, his new Secretary of War, about this time:
I forbid you to contact Talleyrand, as this is g ...! He will stain you.
These very harsh words of Napoleon became known from the "Memoirs" of Louis Victor Léon de Rochechouart.
Louis XVIII (engraving by Audouin from drawing by Gros, 1815).
But the peculiar frankness of this predatory hero Balzac was by no means characteristic of everyone. And even those of the bourgeois politicians who did their best to imitate Talleyrand as an unattainable model, did not stop vilifying him behind his eyes, watching how this maestro of cunning and the most cynical comedian brilliantly plays a completely new role for him on the world stage. Of course, it was his direct adversaries, the diplomats of the feudal-absolutist powers, whom he made it his top priority to fool, who were most angry at his placid impudence. These diplomats saw that in Vienna he deftly snatched their own weapons from them before they came to their senses, and now beats them with this weapon, demanding in the name of the “principle of legitimism” and in the name of respect for the “legitimate” dynasty that returned to France, that not only French territory remained untouched, but that Central Europe also returned completely to its pre-revolutionary state and that therefore the "legitimate" Saxon king would remain with all his old possessions, which were claimed by Prussia.
Talleyrand's opponents were most outraged that he, who at one time sold the legitimate monarchy so quickly, served the revolution, served Napoleon, shot the Duke of Enghien only for his "legitimate" origin, destroyed and trampled under Napoleon © with his seven diplomatic decorations and speeches any semblance of an international rights, any concept of "legitimate" or other rights, - now with the most serene look, with the clearest forehead, he declared (for example, to the Russian delegate at the Vienna Congress, Karl Vasilyevich Nesselrod): "You are talking to me about a deal - I cannot make deals . I am happy that I cannot be as free in my actions as you are. You are guided by your interests, your will: as for me, I am obliged to follow principles, and principles do not enter into transactions” (les principes ne transigent pas). His opponents could not believe their ears when they heard that such harsh speeches and impartial morality were read to them by the same Prince Talleyrand, who - as the already mentioned newspaper Le Nain jaune wrote about him around the same time - spent his whole life selling all those who bought it. Neither Nesselrode, nor the Prussian delegate Humboldt, nor Alexander knew yet that even in those very days of the Congress of Vienna, when Talleyrand gave them harsh lessons in moral behavior, fidelity to principles and religiously unswerving service to legitimism and legality, he received a bribe from the Saxon king five million francs in gold, from the Duke of Baden - one million; they also did not know that subsequently all of them would read in the memoirs of Chateaubriand that for ardent defense in the name of legitimism of the rights of the Neapolitan Bourbons to the throne of the Two Sicilies, Talleyrand then, in Vienna, received six million from the pretender Ferdinand IV (according to other testimony, three million seven hundred thousand) and for the convenience of transferring money was even so kind and helpful that he sent his personal secretary Perret to Ferdinand.
But even here he acted in the matter of taking bribes exactly the same way as under Napoleon. He did not do for bribes those things that would go against the interests of France, or, more broadly, with the main diplomatic goals to which he aspired. But along the way, he received money from those who were personally interested in Talleyrand achieving these goals as soon as possible and as fully as possible. So, France, for example, was directly interested in Prussia not seizing the possessions of the Saxon king, and Talleyrand defended Saxony. But since the Saxon king was much more interested in this than France, this king, in order to arouse the greatest activity in Talleyrand, gave him, for his part, five millions. And Talleyrand took them. And, of course, he took it with such restrained and graceful grandeur, which was always characteristic of him, with which once, in 1807, he accepted a bribe from the same Saxon king in order to convince Napoleon not to take the Sistine Madonna and others from the Dresden Gallery, as a matter of misfortune , which attracted the emperor's paintings.
The return of Napoleon from the island of Elba and the restoration of the empire took Talleyrand completely by surprise. Recently (in May 1933) Ferdinand Bak's fantasy book Le secret de Talleyrand was published in Paris. This "secret" revealed only by Buck is that Talleyrand ... himself arranged Napoleon's escape from Elba. I note this amateurish fantasy book here only as a curiosity to prove that even distant posterity continues to consider Talleyrand capable of the most amazingly cunning plan and dexterous and strong enough to carry out any such project. Needless to say, there is not even a shadow of scientific argumentation in this book.
Wellington (lithograph by Charles Besnier).
Having restored the empire in March 1815, Napoleon let Talleyrand know that he would take him back into service. But Talleyrand remained in Vienna; he did not believe either in the gracious disposition of the emperor (who immediately ordered, upon his widow's accession, to sequester all the property of the prince), nor in the strength of the new Napoleonic reign. The Congress of Vienna closed. Waterloo struck, and the Bourbons, and with them Talleyrand, again returned to France. The circumstances were such that it was not yet possible for Louis XVIII to get rid of Talleyrand, whom he did not like and was afraid of. Not only that: Fouche, Duke of Otrante, about whom it was said that if there were no Talleyrand in the world, he would be the most deceitful and vicious person of all mankind, this same Fouche, by a whole series of clever maneuvers, achieved what he, even for the first time, but still had to be invited to the new cabinet, although Fouche was among those members of the Convention who in 1793 voted for the execution of Louis XVI.
These two men, Talleyrand and Fouchet, both former clergymen, both who embraced the revolution in order to make a career for themselves, both ministers of the Directory, both ministers of Napoleon, both received ducal titles from Napoleon, both made millions under Napoleon, both betrayers of Napoleon—and now, together, they also entered the office of the “most Christian” and “legitimate” monarch, the brother of the executed Louis. Fouche and Talleyrand already knew each other well and that is why they wanted to work with each other above all. With a very great similarity of both in the sense of deep contempt for anything other than personal interests, a complete lack of integrity and any restraining principles in the implementation of their plans, they differed in many respects from one another. Fouche was not a very timid ten, and before 9 Thermidor he boldly put his head on the map, organizing an attack on Robespierre in the Convention and overthrowing him. For Talleyrand, such behavior would be completely unthinkable. Fouche acted in Lyon in the era of terror in a way that Talleyrand would never have dared to act, who emigrated precisely because he believed that it was very dangerous to remain in the camp of the “neutrals” in the present, and to be an active fighter against the counter-revolution would become dangerous in the future. Fouche had a good head, after Talleyrand the best that Napoleon had. The emperor knew this, showered both of them with favors, but then put them in disgrace. That is why he often commemorated them together. For example, after abdicating the throne, he expressed regret that he did not have time to hang Talleyrand and Fouche. “I leave this matter to the Bourbons,” the emperor added, according to legend.
However, the Bourbons, willy-nilly, immediately after Waterloo and after their second return to the throne in the summer of 1815, not only had to refrain from hanging both dukes, both Benevente and Otrante, but also call them to the government of France. The poet and ideologist of the aristocratic-clerical reaction at that moment, Chateaubriand could not hide his fury at the sight of these two leaders of the revolution and the empire, one of which had the blood of Louis XVI and many others executed in Lyon, and the other - the blood of the Duke of Enghien. Chateaubriand was at court when the lame Talleyrand, arm in arm with Fouche, went into the king's office: “Suddenly the door opens; Silently enters Vice, based on Crime, M. Talleyrand, supported by M. Fouche; the infernal vision slowly passes before me, penetrates into the king's office and disappears there.
In the book of S. Zweig "Joseph Fouche" there are several interesting topics. But I would especially single out the line of confrontation between Fouche and Talleyrand.
These two most capable ministers of Napoleon are psychologically the most interesting people his eras do not like each other, probably because they are too much alike in many ways. These are sober, realistic minds, cynical, disregarding students of Machiavelli. Both students of the church, and both passed through the flames of the revolution - this high school, both are equally unscrupulously cold-blooded in matters of money and in matters of honor, both served - equally wrongly and with the same promiscuity in the means of the republic, the Directory, the consulate, the empire and the king. Constantly meet on the same stage world history these two actors in the characteristic roles of defectors, dressed either as revolutionaries, or senators, or ministers, or servants of the king, and precisely because they are people of the same spiritual breed, playing the same diplomatic roles, they hate each other with the coldness of connoisseurs and secret vicious rivals.
Their confrontation is interesting insofar as Behind these two outstanding political figures are different patterns of behavior.
More dazzling, more charming, perhaps the most significant of them all, is Talleyrand. Raised in an exquisite ancient culture, with a flexible mind imbued with the spirit of the eighteenth century, he loves the diplomatic game as one of many exciting games being, but hates work. He is too lazy to write letters with his own hand: like a true voluptuary and refined sybarite, he entrusts all the rough work to another, so that later he carelessly collects all the fruits with his narrow, ringed hand. His intuition is enough for him, which penetrates with lightning speed into the essence of the most confusing situation. A born and well-trained psychologist, according to Napoleon, he easily penetrates the thoughts of another and clarifies to each person what he internally strives for. Bold deviations, quick understanding, deft turns in moments of danger - this is his calling; he contemptuously turns away from the details, from painstaking, sweat-smelling work. From this predilection for the minimum, for the most concentrated form of the game of the mind, follows its ability to compose dazzling puns and aphorisms. He never writes long reports, he characterizes a situation or a person with a single, sharply honed word. In Fouche, on the contrary, this ability to quickly comprehend everything is completely absent; like a bee, diligently, zealously, he collects hundreds of thousands of observations into countless small cells, then adds, combines them and comes to reliable, irrefutable conclusions. His method is analysis, Talleyrand's method is clairvoyance; his strength is industriousness, Talleyrand's strength is quickness of mind. No artist can come up with more striking contrasts than history has done by placing these two figures - the lazy and brilliant improviser Talleyrand and the thousand-eyed, vigilant calculator Fouche - next to Napoleon, whose perfect genius combined the gifts of both: a broad outlook and painstaking analysis, passion and diligence, knowledge and insight.
Talieran knows how to beautifully experience defeat.
The listeners were petrified. Everyone is uncomfortable. Everyone feels that the emperor is behaving unworthily. Only Talleyrand, indifferent and insensitive to insults (it is said that he once fell asleep while reading a pamphlet directed against him), continues to stand with an arrogant look, without changing his face, not considering such abuse an insult. At the end of the storm, he limps silently across the smooth parquet into the hall, and there he throws out one of his poisonous words, which strike more strongly than rude punches. "What a pity that great person so badly brought up,” he says calmly, while the footman throws a cloak over him.
Fouche in moments of defeat internally trembles with rage.
December 14 Talleyrand and Fouche meet at one of the evenings. Society has dinner, talks, chats. Talleyrand is in a great mood. A large circle forms around it: beautiful women, dignitaries and young people, all greedily crowding, wanting to listen to this brilliant storyteller. And indeed, this time he is especially charmant [charming (fr.)]. He recounts times long past when he had to flee to America to avoid the execution of the order of the Convention for his arrest, and extols this magnificent country. Ah, how wonderful it is there - impenetrable forests inhabited by the primitive tribes of the redskins, great unexplored rivers, the powerful Potomac and the huge Lake Erie; and in the midst of this heroic and romantic country, a new breed of people, hardened, strong and efficient, experienced in battle, devoted to freedom, possessing unlimited possibilities and creating exemplary laws. Yes, there is much to learn there, a thousand times more than in our Europe, there is a new, better future. This is where one should live and act, he exclaims enthusiastically, and no post seems to him more tempting than that of ambassador to the United States.
Suddenly, he interrupts a burst of inspiration that seemed to have accidentally seized him and turns to Fouche: "Would you like to receive such an appointment, Duke?" Fouche turns pale. He understood. Inwardly, he trembles with rage: how skillfully and deftly, in front of everyone, the old fox put his ministerial chair out the door. Fouche does not answer. But after a few minutes he bows and, having come home, writes his resignation. Talleyrand is satisfied and, returning home, he informs his friends with a wry smile: "This time I completely twisted his neck."
AT last days of his existence, Fouche, who has lost the meaning of life, is lonely and miserable.
One of Fouche's contemporaries very figuratively describes in his memoirs his visit to one of the public balls: "It was strange to see how kindly the duchess was received and how no one paid attention to Fouche himself. He was of medium height, dense, but not fat, with an ugly face "At dance parties he constantly appeared in a blue tailcoat with gold buttons, decorated with a large Austrian order of Leopold, in white pantaloons and white stockings. He usually stood alone by the stove and watched the dances. When I watched this once omnipotent minister of the French Empire, who stood aside so alone and abandoned and seemed to be glad if some official entered into a conversation with him or offered him a game of chess - I involuntarily thought about the frailty of any earthly power and power.
Talleyrand completed his earthly destiny quite brilliantly. Here is how E. Tarle comments on this fact:
And again everything went like clockwork until his peaceful death in 1838, which alone could stop this brilliant career and which therefore caused, as you know, at the same time a naive and ironic exclamation: “Is Prince Talleyrand really dead? Curious to know why he needed it now!” To such an extent, all his actions seemed to his contemporaries always deliberate and deliberate, always expedient from a career point of view and always, ultimately, successful for him personally.
One gets the impression that the weak link in Fouche's pattern of behavior was that he was essentially a slave to power. It was the all-consuming meaning of his life. Fouche was not reflective enough to see himself from the outside and make decisions outside the momentary process. " And the mad ambitious Fouche commits this stupidity in order to drink a few more hours of history from the source of power.. For Talleyrand, power was a means to other joys of life - “ she presents him with the best and most decent opportunity to enjoy earthly pleasures - luxury, women, art, a thin table". And this allows him to physically or mentally withdraw from the political process, to make the right decisions. Fouche was a gambler who played by the rules, while Talleyrand was an anti-player who changed the rules as the game progressed.
The Congress of Vienna was convened on the initiative of England, Russia, Austria and Prussia after the end of the Napoleonic Wars with the aim of restoring the monarchical regime in France and securing new borders in Europe. Interests of Congress Participants The Peace of Paris, signed on May 30, 1814 between France and the countries participating in the 6th anti-French coalition, provided for the convocation of a congress of all European states (excluding Turkey) in Vienna. His task was to restore the principles state structure(which existed in Europe before the French Revolution), the restoration of the dynasties overthrown by Napoleon I, the creation of a system of guarantees against his return to power, as well as the redistribution of the territories of Europe and colonies in the interests of the victorious countries. The preliminary agreements of the initiators of the congress provided for the solution of the main issues in a narrow circle, followed by consultations between France and Spain.
The congress was led by four victorious countries, there was no agreement between them.
Each of the parties pursued its own goals at the congress. Prussia hoped to get the left bank of the Rhine and Saxony. Russia was ready to support her, counting, in turn, on the lands of the Duchy of Warsaw. England, Austria and France resisted a similar strengthening of Prussia and Russia. Austria sought to consolidate its hegemony in Germany, while maintaining the independence of Saxony as a buffer state; England intended to keep the French and Dutch colonies she had captured. On January 3, 1815, these powers concluded a secret treaty, the purpose of which was to prevent the accession of Saxony to Prussia and Poland to Russia.
On September 23, a week before the opening of the congress scheduled for October 1, 1814, the foreign minister of Louis XVIII, Prince Talleyrand-Périgord, arrived in Vienna along with other French diplomats. He was the representative of the defeated country. Therefore, it was necessary for him to show maximum ingenuity and ability to maneuver.
At the center of the congress was the Polish-Saxon question.
Even before the opening of the congress, the leaders of the war had already formed a committee and had a meeting. As Talleyrand writes, “they intended to decide for themselves what was to be discussed by the congress. And at the same time decide without the participation of France, which they would inform after the final decision. Prince Talleyrand had to use his personal influence on the main participants in the congress (we remember that Talleyrand had a trusting relationship with both Alexander I and Metternich). The first meeting determined the position of France at the congress.
Even before his arrival in Vienna, Talleyrand understood well that from the point of view of France's interests, it was most rational to put forward the so-called "principle of legitimism." This principle was as follows: Europe, gathered in the person of its sovereigns and diplomats at the Congress of Vienna, must, in redistributing land and changing territorial boundaries, leave inviolable what legally existed before 1792, before the start of revolutionary wars. If this principle were accepted and implemented, then not only France would be assured of the integrity of its territory, but Prussia and Russia would be curbed in their desire for territorial expansion.
The Allies had already decided on the fate of France, and there were no disagreements among the Allies on this issue.
At the meeting, to which France had not yet been admitted, a program was adopted, according to which the winner decided to conclude a secret agreement regarding the division of land. Talleyrand criticized such actions of the allies, so that the allies had to make concessions. On October 8, Talleyrand forced them to sign a declaration, according to which the Congress meeting was scheduled for November 1, confidential negotiations were to take place. Also at the meeting of October 8, Talleyrand managed to achieve the inclusion of France, in his person, in the steering committee.
The work of the congress did not move forward because of the stubborn internal struggle. Then Talleyrand had to change tactics, keeping the same goal: to deepen the split within the winners. France was interested in preventing the strengthening of Russia and Prussia. Talleyrand made it clear that France would not agree to the creation of a Kingdom of Poland within Russian Empire, as well as France did not agree to the transfer of Saxony to Prussia.
Talleyrand did not miss the opportunity to disunite France's recent victors. On January 3, 1815, a secret agreement was signed. “A secret alliance has been formed between France, Austria and England against Russia and Prussia. Thus, by the force of principles alone, France destroyed an alliance directed exclusively against her. Disagreement reigned among the allies. While<был>a new alliance was created, in which the main role belonged to France. The agreement was to be kept in the strictest confidence from Alexander and from anyone else. This treaty increased resistance to the Saxon project, so that Alexander had to decide to break or retreat. Having received everything he wanted in Poland, he did not want to quarrel, much less fight with the three great powers. He stepped back.
A few days before Waterloo, on June 9, 1815, the last meeting of the Congress of Vienna took place. As well as the signing of the "Final Act", which consisted of 121 articles and 17 separate applications. It was denounced in the form of a common tract concluded by the eight powers that signed the Treaty of Paris; everyone else was invited to join him.
The Vienna Tract was only a simple reproduction of the main agreements that had previously been concluded between individual powers. What were the main results of the congress?
- -restoration of the Bourbons in the person of Louis XVIII;
- - depriving France of her conquests;
- -Switzerland expanded its lands and received strategically important alpine passes;
- -Italy was fragmented into a number of separate states; the Sardinian kingdom was restored, to which Savoy and Nice were returned and Genoa was attached;
- - Austria established its power over Northern Italy and received the predominant influence in the German Confederation;
- -the lands of the Duchy of Warsaw went to Russia, excluding Krakow, which was given the status of a "free city" and Eastern Galicia, annexed to Austria;
- - Prussia received North Saxony, the left bank of the Rhine, most of Westphalia, Swedish Pomerania and the island of Rügen;
- - Holland and Belgium formed the Kingdom of the Netherlands;
- -Sweden received the territory of Norway;
- -England secured part of the former colonies of Holland and France.
In addition to the articles, the Final Act included 17 annexes, including the treaty on the division of Poland, the declaration on the abolition of the trade in blacks, the rules for navigation on border and international rivers, the regulation on diplomatic agents, and the act on the constitution of the German Union.
In addition to solving the main political and territorial issues, the Congress of Vienna adopted a number of special additional resolutions in the form of acts attached to the Main Road. Among them, a special place is occupied by the “Declaration of the Powers on the Destruction of the Negro Trade”, signed on February 8, 1815, as well as the “Regulations on the Ranks of Diplomatic Representatives”, adopted by the Congress on March 19, 1815, which then entered diplomatic use for many years as a norm of international law. and remains in force to this day. This ruling put an end to the endless quarrels and conflicts over questions of precedence that were common in 18th-century diplomatic practice.
The victorious sovereigns, who gathered in September 1814 in Vienna, set themselves three main goals:
- 1. create guarantees against a possible repetition of aggression by France;
- 2. satisfy their own territorial claims;
- 3. destroy all the consequences of the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century and everywhere restore the old feudal-absolutist order.
But only the first of these goals has been fully achieved. As for the second - the satisfaction of territorial claims - only a few victorious countries emerged from long and bloody wars with France really expanding at the expense of other, weaker European states. The third goal of the Congress of Vienna - the eradication of revolutionary principles and the complete establishment of the principles of legitimism - was never achieved.
Thus, the Congress of Vienna did not, in fact, eliminate all the main international contradictions. As for Talleyrand's activity at the congress, it was brilliant. Thanks to the efforts of Talleyrand: France remained safe and sound, plus everything else, France turned from a defeated country into a victorious country that dictated its terms at the congress.
The Congress of Vienna was the first to develop a system of treaties that regulated international relationships and fixing new frontiers throughout Europe.
After the Congress of Vienna 1814-1815. the technique of multilateral diplomacy has become routine. The experience gained by countries in the framework of international congresses and conferences was a model that was subsequently used in the creation of the structure and functioning of international organizations.
The Congress of Vienna ended the coalition wars of the European powers with Napoleon. Treaties aimed at restoring the feudal order and satisfying the territorial claims of the victorious powers were concluded, the political fragmentation of Germany and Italy was fixed; The Duchy of Warsaw is divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria. France is stripped of her conquests.
With the most skillful intrigues, he separated the allies, forcing them to forget about their agreement during the defeat of Napoleon. France, England and Austria united against Russia and Prussia. The Congress of Vienna laid the foundations for European policy for the coming years. And Minister Talleyrand played a decisive role in this. It was he who, in order to maintain a strong France, put forward the idea of legitimism (legality), in which everything territorial acquisitions since the revolution were declared invalid, and the political system of European countries had to remain at the turn of 1792. France thereby retained its “natural borders”.
Perhaps the monarchs believed that in this way the revolution would be forgotten. But Prince Talleyrand was wiser than them. Unlike the Bourbons, who took seriously the principle of legitimism in domestic politics, Talleyrand saw from the example of Napoleon's Hundred Days that it was madness to go back. It was only Louis XVIII who believed that he had regained the rightful throne of his ancestors. The foreign minister knew perfectly well that the king was sitting on the throne of Bonaparte.
CITIZEN MINISTER
Meanwhile, a new vacancy has suddenly opened up in Paris: the post of Minister of Police. Barras suggested that Citizen Fouche be appointed to this post. His candidacy received enthusiastic support. The Foreign Minister of the Directory, Talleyrand, told Barras: “Now, when the Jacobins are so bold, no one but the Jacobin can overcome them ... the best person than Fouche is not available for this task."
July 21, 1799 Fouche became Minister of Police. From the very first days of his activity, he faced two main difficulties. The first was that he had to fight "on two fronts": against the Jacobins and the royalists. The second is the reorganization of the Ministry of Police itself on new grounds. As for the first, Fouche approached it "creatively". Already on the third day after taking office, he presented the Directory with a decree against the royalists. The directors were surprised that the greatest danger to the government, in the opinion of the Minister of Police, was represented by the royalists. When asked by Sieyes why Fusche did not want to do anything against the Jacobins, Joseph replied: "If we make a frontal attack against them, our success is doubtful; therefore, we must first take action against the royalists. All the Jacobins will support us in this, and the next day we will finish the Jacobins."
First attacking the royalists, Fouche then issued an order placing all political clubs under the control of the authorities. On August 14, he personally appeared at the Jacobin Club, closed its meeting, locked the door of this once famous meeting and put the key in his pocket. Arriving at the Luxembourg Palace, he put his "trophy" on the table of the astonished directors, not without coquetry.
As regards the solution of the second problem, the situation was perhaps even more complicated. This was explained by the extremely imperfect organization of the police service in France under the Directory. Police functions were distributed between the political police, which was under the supervision and leadership of the Directory itself, and the so-called administrative police, given "at the mercy" of the local authorities. In fact, there was no single police as such, and Fouche had to create a police ministry almost from scratch. The main element of his department was the "secret police", not separated by the "Chinese wall" from other parts of the ministry. Fouche left the highest rung in the police hierarchy; his "office" was the "secret police". A little lower was the so-called "central bureau", which headed the local (Paris) police, but was also under the personal control of the minister.
Fouche's "secret police" functioned on a "personal basis". The minister himself entered into contacts with influential figures, got acquainted with the opinions that were in circulation in the Parisian high society. According to Fouche, thanks to this system, he "was better acquainted with the secrets of France through oral and confidential conversations than through familiarization with piles of written rubbish." "In this way, he remarked, nothing essential to the security of the country has ever fallen out of my sight.".
Fouche put a lot of effort into creating a kind of "image" of the police as a powerful state organization. In society, he sought to convince everyone that his agents are numerous and ubiquitous. Jokingly, he used to recommend to his friends from the Faubourg Saint-Germain that they only engage in conspiracies in his presence. For otherwise, the police agents will certainly inform him about this and he will be forced to take appropriate measures in line with his duty. In fact, as his assistant of many years and official of the Real Police Ministry testified, no one had so few agents as Fouche.
Real, Pierre-Francois (1757-1834) - lawyer, Chaumette's deputy in 1793, later supporter of the Directory, compiler of a number of its documents and editor of the Patriots' Newspaper of 1789, figure in the police ministry.
Meanwhile, the Directory was losing ground under its feet. Shameful failures in foreign policy, internal instability, the growth of social tension in France - all this pointed to the inevitability of the fall of the "five kings" regime. Director Sieyes "on the sly" led the case to a coup d'état. France needs "a head and a sword," Sieyès said; The "sword" was yet to be found. The expected "messiah" appeared in Paris on October 16, 1799 in the person of General Bonaparte. Leaving his victoriously doomed army in Egypt and safely overcoming the dangers of a sea voyage, he returned to France.
Exactly one month later, as a result of a conspiracy, the Directory was overthrown. Fouche was well aware of everything, since one of his sources was Madame Josephine Bonaparte, "never had a single ecu." "I myself gave her a thousand louis as a ministerial gift, and this, more than anything, put her in my favor, Fouche wrote in his memoirs. - Through her I received great information since she visited all of Paris". Another, true, his disinterested informant was Real - a participant in the conspiracy.
In the days leading up to the coup of 18 Brumaire, Fouche held all the threads of the conspiracy in his hands. He himself, not without pride, wrote that " revolution in Saint Cloud(Coup d'état on 18 Brumaire. - A.E. )would fail" if he resisted her. This is confirmed, among other things, by the remarks of contemporaries of the Brumérian revolution. Napoleon's secretary F. Bourrienne wrote that “The real, under the leadership of Fouche, acted in the provinces and, considering the instructions of his chief, skillfully arranged everything so that, without harming Fouche, to destroy those from whom this minister received his power ... Fouche told me another 14 Brumaire: “Give your the general to hurry; if he delays, he will perish."
Fouche clearly "spurred on" the conspirators, played along with Bonaparte. "He betrayed the government in which he was a minister, and Barras, his patron,"- so extremely briefly and at the same time quite accurately described the position taken by the minister in November 1799, one of the observant eyewitnesses of those years. With his cynical, penetrating mind, Fouche "recognized" in the dark-skinned general the future ruler of France. He "put on Bonaparte" and did not lose.
The coup d'état of 18 Brumaire (November 9), 1799, did away with the Directory, replacing it with the Consulate, headed by the first consul, Bonaparte. Legislative councils were dissolved, and ministerial posts were distributed among "devoted and loyal" executors. The police department remained with Fouche, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - with Talleyrand. "What revolutionary does not inspire confidence in such an order of things,- said Napoleon at the beginning of 1800, - under which Fouche will be the Minister of Police? What nobleman would not hope to succeed in life under the former Bishop of Autun? One guards me on the left and the other on the right. I open a wide road along which everyone can go to their goal".
Fouche, as best he could, tried to justify the trust of the "owner". Louis Madeleine was perhaps the first historian to note the fact that the French learned about the change of power in the Republic and the establishment of the Consulate regime from a proclamation signed by the Minister of Police. The next day, 19 Brumaire, Fouche explained to the “dull-witted” what the “goodness” of the uprising in Saint-Cloud really consisted of: "The government was too weak to support the glory of the Republic abroad and ensure the rights of its citizens at home. A way had to be found to give the Republic strength and greatness." The Minister of Police was inexhaustible. Brumaire's proclamations of 18 and 19 were followed by numerous reports by Fouche praising the "happy change" in the fate of France. This excessive zeal, overflowing devotion is suggestive. Apparently, Fouche felt the fragility of his position under Bonaparte and therefore sought to demonstrate to him his loyalty, devotion to his person, sometimes reaching ridiculous exaggerations in his "enthusiasm".
The first weeks after the coup d'état were marked by the offensive of the consular government against the Jacobins. Fouche was instructed to draw up a proscriptional list of opponents of the regime. Fouche, according to him, did not approve of the adoption of repressive measures against the Jacobins, but, of course, he made a list. 55 of the most irreconcilable enemies of the "revolution of 18 Brumaire" fell into it.
The minister of police himself was much more afraid of the royalists, whose activity increased sharply in the winter of 1800, on the anniversary of the execution of Louis XVI. Fouche tried to cope with the royalist movement by methods "tested" since the days of the Directory. In January 1800, he managed to arrest several members of the so-called "English Committee" and obtain a number of royalist documents. The captured agent of the royalists gave Fouche many names of his "comrades-in-arms." The spy network created by Fouche was all-encompassing. According to Yu.M. Steklova, Fouche "organized such espionage and provocation as history had never seen before." They spied everywhere - in cafes, in theaters, in gambling houses, in public places. Espionage has acquired the status of an important "public service". The conspiracy in the case of the police investigation was brought to perfection - the most highly paid agents of the minister, who rotated in high society, handed over their reports to him unsigned, through third parties. Fouche's agents acted in a similar way abroad. There were even among those close to the "applicant" - Louis XVIII - and at the courts of European monarchs. After thoroughly "beating" the "English Committee", Fouche attacked another counter-revolutionary organization, the "Swabian Agency", which was under the supervision of the chief of British intelligence in Europe, William Wickham.
Fighting "sedition" from the left and right, Fouche, shortly before Napoleon's departure for the army in the spring of 1800, received the task of "pacifying" the Vendée. Through the famous Abbé Bernier and two viscountesses, his agents undertook to "process" the royalists, convincing them that Bonaparte would do everything to put the Bourbons on the throne. The royalists, secretly longing to find a second Monk in Bonaparte, "fell for his bait." The ploy worked. For a time, the consular government gained benevolent neutrality on the part of the royalists.
In his department, Fouche carried out important organizational measures, the largest of which was the establishment on March 8, 1800 of the police prefecture. Its creation completed a rather lengthy process of formalizing the structure of the police service in France during the years of the revolution. The corps of prefects was the most powerful lever of Napoleon's domestic policy. Another innovation of Fouche was the establishment on October 26, 1801 of the post of General Commissioners of Police, who had broad powers and were personally appointed by the Minister of Police to carry out short-term assignments caused by circumstances.
Cloudless relations between the Minister of Police and the First Consul were soon overshadowed, however. The reason for this was the events of June 20, 1800, when rumors spread around Paris about the defeat of Bonaparte's army in the battle of Alexandria. A conspiracy was brewing in the city to eliminate the first consul, and the minister of police was practically inactive. On the night of July 2-3, the "conqueror of Italy" unexpectedly returned to Paris. Fouche came to the sovereign with a report, and he did not hide his dissatisfaction with what happened on June 20 from him. But this time too, Fouche managed to hide the "ends in the water" and left virtually no evidence of his participation in the project of replacing the "Cromwell" with another, less despotic "master".
However, even for him it was absolutely impossible to hide the "inexplicable" passivity shown by him on June 20, 1800. All his "arguments" only aggravated Bonaparte's suspicion. Probably, it was at this time that the emergence of various police forces should be attributed, whose functions were not so much to monitor citizens, but to observe each other. The first consul had his informants, his brother, Lucien, the Minister of the Interior, his own, Talleyrand his own; even the generals who commanded troops in Paris and other military districts had them.
The existence of various police "departments" led to curious results. Some spies worked as "part-timers"; thus, a certain Robillard was both a personal spy for Bonaparte and a spy for the minister of police. The pay was, of course, double. However, there is no doubt that the "subsidiary" police were no match for the police of Fouche himself. For Fouche, even the personal secretary of the first consul, Fauvelet Bourrienne, spied. Having learned that Fouche spends 100 thousand francs a month to keep abreast of everything related to the life of the first consul, Bourrienne offered the minister comprehensive information about Napoleon for 25 thousand francs. Fouche's other channel of information was still "working" uninterruptedly, where the first consul's wife acted as an informant. "I had the opportunity to check the information of the secretary of the one I received from Josephine, and vice versa. I was stronger than all my enemies put together" Fouche noted.
After Marengo, Emperor Napoleon appeared more and more in Consul Bonaparte. This led to the fact that the regime of the Consulate began to cause growing discontent among the supporters of the republic. "The whole first year of the consulate,- wrote Desmarais, - was a series of conspiracies directed against Napoleon by the so-called republicans, or rather by those close to the fallen Directory. One of the most notorious was the conspiracy of Arena and Ceracchi in October 1800, who tried to kill General Bonaparte. But it was timely uncovered by agents of the palace police, and its participants, armed with daggers, were captured in the Opera building. Fouche in his memoirs characterized the Arena-Ceracchi affair as "ridiculous attempt on the life of the first consul" and did not even try to take credit for exposing the conspirators.
The next attempt on the life of the first consul was an explosion on the Rue Saint-Nicaise on the evening of December 21, 1800. Now the blow was delivered from the right. The attempt was prepared and carried out by the royalists. The First Consul and his wife, this time, escaped death by pure chance. That day Napoleon was going to visit the Opera. The conspirators knew about this and placed on the Rue Saint-Nicaise, along which the first consul was to follow, a water cart generously stuffed with explosives. Having waited uselessly for his aging but still flirtatious wife, who could not choose a shawl for a trip to the Theater, Napoleon went there alone. There was little time left before the start of the performance, and the carriage of the first consul sped along the Rue Saint-Nicaise in the twinkling of an eye. The explosion of the "hellish machine" rumbled after Bonaparte's stroller passed dangerous area. Napoleon's wife was just leaving the house when the explosion was heard. The roar from the "infernal machine" was so strong that it was heard within the walls of the Comédie Francaise, where a curious incident occurred. One of the actors of the theater, Armand d'Ailly, who made a successful debut in 1800, suggested that this was a salute in honor of the next victory of French weapons over the enemies of the Republic. At his insistence, the "joyful event" was announced to the public gathered in the hall. When it turned out , what's the matter, the unlucky patriot was arrested, imprisoned, and only with considerable difficulty managed to prove his innocence.
Demonstrating enviable self-control in public. Napoleon, however, did not consider it necessary to restrain himself in the presence of his chief spy. He sharply reprimanded Fouche, asking him if he wanted to say that the royalists were the organizers of the assassination attempt? "Yes, Fouche answered. without any doubt; I will say it and, moreover, present the relevant evidence." According to the unanimous and numerous testimonies of contemporaries. Napoleon was convinced that the responsibility for the explosion lay with the Jacobins. A week after the assassination attempt, in accordance with the order of the First Consul, Fouche compiled proscription lists of his "friends" - the Jacobins. They were primarily persecuted and expelled from the country by the hundreds.
Now the First Consul seemed to favor his Minister of Police. Shortly after the assassination attempt on December 21, in a conversation with Josephine, Napoleon said that Fouche was smart and would always be useful. However, Fouche was in a very difficult position, since there were many of his enemies in Bonaparte's entourage. The most vehement opponent was the Secretary of War of the Republic, General Clark. Talleyrand was equally hostile to him, although there was some kind of internal "kinship" between him and Fouche. No wonder the observant and cynical Barras said that "Talleyrand is the Fouche of the nobility, and Fouche is the Talleyrand of the canals." After the assassination attempt, Talleyrand, as the imperial chancellor Etienne-Denis Pasquier later admitted in his memoirs, openly expressed in the presence of the first consul the "thought" that it would be nice to arrest Fouche and shoot him within 24 hours.
Fortunately for Fouche, his agents were quick to "get on the trail" of the conspirators. In a matter of days, almost all the participants and organizers of the assassination attempt were arrested. All of them really turned out to be royalists. Fouche's "jewelry work" to uncover the conspiracy made a great impression on Napoleon. For the time being, Fouche was necessary to Bonaparte. This quality of the minister of police - the ability to make oneself necessary - was noted by all memoirists who knew Fouche. Contemporary American historian Hubert Cole argues that Napoleon felt more secure when the police ministry was in the man's hands. A virtuoso of espionage, a master of provocation, he had indeed succeeded in guarding the security of the first magistrate of the Republic. The December 21 bombing was an exception to the rule; in all other cases, the conspirators invariably and in advance fell into the nets cleverly set up by the Minister of Police. Fouche was indispensable for Napoleon and as an ideal executor of his orders. But at the same time, Napoleon did not feel complete confidence in him. Probably, in the depths of his soul, he was convinced that Fouche was hiding something from him and did not report to him about everything. Sometimes this incredulity sounded frankly in Bonaparte's messages to the Minister of Police. In his letter dated February 24, 1802, there are these lines: "Restoring peace...allows me to pay more attention to the police. I wish to be more informed about everything that is taking place and to meet with you at least once or twice a day."
Fouche made a considerable personal "contribution" to the defeat of the French press and to the organization of strict censorship, which put "under control" the entire intellectual life in the country. He understood the "master" perfectly, which explains the extreme brevity of the first consul's messages to his minister of police:
"Napoleon to Citizen Fouche.
The general commissioner of police in Bordeaux was stupid enough to allow couplets to be sung in honor of the King of Tuscany (i.e. the Duke of Parma, to whom Napoleon gave possession of Tuscany in 1801. - A.E. )... I hardly need to advise you to see to it that poetry is not read or sung in theaters and other public places.
Bonaparte".
Fouche strictly carried out the orders of the first consul regarding a broad amnesty for emigrants. "The eradicator of the Christian cult", "the apostle of freedom" graciously received the crowds of exiles who came to France. A decade later, émigrés remembered with gratitude the charmingly amiable Minister of Police, Bonaparte.
On occasion, Fouche readily demonstrated his "police power." Once, at a dinner with Napoleon, the Spanish ambassador complained that he had been robbed - diamonds worth almost a million francs had been stolen from him, and noted at the same time that the thief, obviously, would never be found. "Honor of the uniform" was under threat. Fouche showed extraordinary promptness, and the very next day five thieves were in prison, and the diamonds were solemnly returned to their rightful owner. The whole operation took a day and 500 thousand francs, issued as a reward to Fouche's informers.
The increasing power of the Minister of Police from day to day clearly ceased to suit Napoleon; but, probably, the last straw that overflowed the cup of patience was still not Fouche's police "tricks", but a more significant reason regarding the extension of the powers of the first consul. Napoleon marched towards dictatorship. In France, still by inertia, they continued to celebrate July 14 - Bastille Day and September 21 - "Freedom Day", but all this republican masquerade already poorly concealed the almost royal status of the first person in the state.
Too cunning to openly oppose the claims of Bonaparte, Fouche spread a rumor among the senators that the first consul "dreams" of extending his powers for 10 years. The senators, believing that the Minister of Police was acting on the instructions of Bonaparte, fell for the bait. On May 8, 1801, the Senate announced its decision to recognize the outstanding services of the "great man" by re-electing him as first consul for the next 10 years. Napoleon, enraged by the "reward", stopped the comedy, putting the question to the plebiscite: "Should Bonaparte be appointed consul for life?" It is known how this referendum ended on August 2, 1802: Napoleon was proclaimed consul for life. Only one step separated him from the throne.
Fouche's involvement in the conspiracy for life was not accidental. It represented only a link in a long chain of events connected in one way or another with Fouche's attempt to prevent the restoration of the monarchy. It suffices to name one of the earlier links in this chain - Fouche's skirmish with Lucien Bonaparte in 1800, which unfolded around the pamphlet "The Historical Connection between Cromwell and Bonaparte" inspired by Lucien, which essentially justified the dictatorship of the first consul, to make it clear - Fouche was really afraid of restoration monarchy and did everything to prevent it. Some modern writers are inclined to attribute this fact, in itself indisputable, to Fouche's "republican leaven." Is it really? Hardly. A man who consistently betrayed all the regimes he served, Fouche remained unshakably loyal only to the "regime" in which he, Fouche, would be the Minister of Police. Fouche feared that with the revival of monarchical orders, representatives of noble aristocratic families would receive the most important posts in the state. For the rootless careerists, and even the regicides, the monarchy promised few benefits. This, apparently, should explain Fouche's "opposition" to the cause of turning the consul of the Republic into Emperor of the French.
1802 brought peace to France. After the second year of the war, the French finally lived in peace with all their neighbors. September 13, 1802 Bonaparte was visiting his older brother Joseph in his estate Morfontaine. There were also the second and third consuls - Cambaceres and Lebrun. They presented Napoleon with a memorandum stating that in connection with the establishment of peace "The Ministry of Police has become an unnecessary and dangerous body": unnecessary - since the royalists have disarmed and want nothing more than to recognize the existing government; dangerous - since it patronizes "anarchists", i.e. Jacobins who find "protection and work" there. Napoleon happily jumped at the opportunity to get rid of his too knowledgeable, influential and unreliable minister. True, in order to free himself from Fouche's "services", he had to liquidate an entire department. But there's nothing to be done: they cut down the forest - chips fly!
On September 14, Napoleon, thanking Fouche for his service, informed him that the police were being transferred to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice. It was a resignation. The last act of the performance, in the essence of which no one was deceived, was the message of the first consul to the Senate, where he praised as best he could "talent and activity" Fouche, the way he responded to every task entrusted to him, and emphasized that, "If various circumstances again lead to the restoration of the post of Minister of Police, then the government will not find a person more worthy for this post than Fouche."