What do you think?
Rate this book
Joseph Fouché
Joseph Fouché (1759-1820) fascine toujours aujourd'hui parce qu'il fut un acteur de premier plan durant plus de vingt années d'une densité exceptionnelle (ses deux grands rivaux ne s'appelèrent-ils pas Robespierre et Napoléon?) et qu'il fut l'inventeur de la police politique.
Il n'eut pas son pareil pour " vouloir être de tout ", comme le déclara un jour l'Empereur, pour occuper le devant de la scène à tout prix (" l'intrigue [lui] était aussi nécessaire que la nourriture "). Ne pouvant se résoudre à rester au second plan, il se singularisa durant la Terreur par un comportement particulièrement sanguinaire comme représentant en mission à Nevers et à Lyon; il fut ensuite l'un des inspirateurs du complot contre Robespierre le 9 thermidor; le 13 vendémiaire, il prodigua ses conseils à Barras mais l'abandonna le 18 brumaire. Ministre de la Police de Napoléon, il se délectait à démêler les fils des intrigues jacobines ou royalistes. Disgracié à deux reprises pour avoir manifesté une fidélité à éclipse au régime et au souverain, il intrigua un peu plus tard auprès de Murat, roi de Naples, pour le détacher de Napoléon. La confusion des Cent-Jours le combla par les occasions qu'elle lui donna de multiplier les manoeuvres, et il parvint un temps à devenir le ministre de la Police de Louis XVIII, lui le régicide, avant de mourir en exil, riche à millions.
Ce parcours plus tortueux encore _ s'il est possible _ que celui de Talleyrand a passionné des auteurs aussi divers que Balzac, Zweig et, récemment, Jean-Claude Brisville. N'était-il naturel qu'il retînt l'attention de notre meilleur historien de l'Empire, Jean Tulard?
Membre de l'Institut (Académie des sciences morales et politiques), professeur à l'université de Paris-Sorbonne, directeur de l'Institut Napoléon, Jean Tulard a publié plusieurs dizaines d'ouvrages sur la Révolution et l'Empire. Il est ainsi l'auteur de Napoléon ou le mythe du Sauveur (Fayard) et a dirigé le Dictionnaire Napoléon ainsi que le Dictionnaire du Second Empire (Fayard).
Il n'eut pas son pareil pour " vouloir être de tout ", comme le déclara un jour l'Empereur, pour occuper le devant de la scène à tout prix (" l'intrigue [lui] était aussi nécessaire que la nourriture "). Ne pouvant se résoudre à rester au second plan, il se singularisa durant la Terreur par un comportement particulièrement sanguinaire comme représentant en mission à Nevers et à Lyon; il fut ensuite l'un des inspirateurs du complot contre Robespierre le 9 thermidor; le 13 vendémiaire, il prodigua ses conseils à Barras mais l'abandonna le 18 brumaire. Ministre de la Police de Napoléon, il se délectait à démêler les fils des intrigues jacobines ou royalistes. Disgracié à deux reprises pour avoir manifesté une fidélité à éclipse au régime et au souverain, il intrigua un peu plus tard auprès de Murat, roi de Naples, pour le détacher de Napoléon. La confusion des Cent-Jours le combla par les occasions qu'elle lui donna de multiplier les manoeuvres, et il parvint un temps à devenir le ministre de la Police de Louis XVIII, lui le régicide, avant de mourir en exil, riche à millions.
Ce parcours plus tortueux encore _ s'il est possible _ que celui de Talleyrand a passionné des auteurs aussi divers que Balzac, Zweig et, récemment, Jean-Claude Brisville. N'était-il naturel qu'il retînt l'attention de notre meilleur historien de l'Empire, Jean Tulard?
Membre de l'Institut (Académie des sciences morales et politiques), professeur à l'université de Paris-Sorbonne, directeur de l'Institut Napoléon, Jean Tulard a publié plusieurs dizaines d'ouvrages sur la Révolution et l'Empire. Il est ainsi l'auteur de Napoléon ou le mythe du Sauveur (Fayard) et a dirigé le Dictionnaire Napoléon ainsi que le Dictionnaire du Second Empire (Fayard).
500 pages, Paperback
First published January 7, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 14, 2026
One good biography, there at least three I know of that are good, its good to mix them with books about Talleyrand and other people for period.
Barras, cruel as ever, painted a scathing portrait of him: "In the year III, Fouché was still living in poverty, living in an attic with his wife, a former nun, a woman of equally vile character, ironically called 'the virtuous woman' because of her terrible ugliness. Redheaded like her husband, down to her eyelashes and eyebrows, she had a child, a worthy product of that hideous couple, no less red than the mother and father, a true albino, who, despite this, was obviously dear to the parents. It was natural for them to want to feed their little piglet."
But how? Fouché had transformed himself into an informer. With his talent for intrigue gaining access everywhere, he sent Barras daily information. The latter, embroiled in a ruthless struggle with the royalists, who in April 1797 won the elections renewing one-third of the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of Elders, could not refuse Fouché's support. Barras quotes one of his notes. In it, Fouché reports primarily on a conversation held in his presence between Edme-Bonaventure Courtois and Jean-Charles Bailleul, or perhaps Dominique Garat. Did this information prove useful to Barras in preparing the coup of 18 Fructidora? Possibly. But the greatest asset Barras held—the proof of the treason of General Pichegru, who had defected from the republicans to the royalists—was provided not by Fouché but by Bonaparte, who had found the information in the papers of a counterrevolutionary agent, the Comte d'Antraigues. Nevertheless, after the successful coup of 18 Fructidora, Fouché demanded his share of the loot: "Now it's the patriots who should eat quail and truffles." However, Barras encountered reservations from the Directory regarding Fouché. Thus, Joseph was forced to continue playing the role of informant in exchange for support.
While his notes from before the coup are rather uninteresting, the information he acquired later seems far more valuable. He was reportedly the first to warn Barras that Bonaparte was distancing himself. Hadn't the general confided in Fouché: "I can no longer count on Barras. On the one hand, he supports the Directory, on the other, he has a revolutionary soul and a Jacobin heart"? Did Bonaparte really share this reflection with Fouché? It's unlikely. Perhaps Fouché was trying to add value to himself? Or, more plausibly, Barras himself concocted Fouché's report to settle scores with Bonaparte? It's impossible to say. Although Barras writes very negatively about Fouché in his memoirs, there's much to suggest that he showed him understanding. Fouché won't repay him for this. For now, Barras encourages Fouché to delve into commercial and financial circles.
In 1809, he replaced Bertrand as head of the department. Limodin, who worked at the Central Office, was responsible for interrogations.
The second department, also consisting of three offices, dealt with murders, thefts, frauds, counterfeiting, and the supervision of budget hotels. The General Security Register, the ancestor of our judicial records, was kept here. This department was headed by Jean Henry, who devoted his life to pursuing criminals and made his debut as a subordinate of the Parisian police chief, Lenoir. At the police headquarters in Châtelet, he met Dubois. This strange figure inspired fear among criminals, who nicknamed him the "cunning angel." He was in poor health and rarely left his office; he mostly relied on deduction and had extensive knowledge of the practices of the escarpes, thieves who killed for loot. This department included the prison office, headed by a certain Parisot and later his son.
The third department, headed by Chicou, dealt with economic matters: streets, lighting, sweeping, mud removal, fires, and, above all, supplies for the capital.
The power of the Parisian police prefect stemmed not only from the offices under his command, but also from the units responsible for maintaining order in Paris: commissioners, peace officers, and inspectors.
Commissioners had existed since the ancien régime. They were too important not to be eliminated by the Revolution, and at the same time too useful to disappear forever. New commissioners were elected, but the system was so corrupt as to be unsatisfactory. According to the decree of 12 Messidor, Year VIII, the Parisian commissioners were to report to the Prefect of Police, and their number—forty-eight—remained unchanged. They were appointed by the First Consul from a list submitted by the Ministry of Police, with the names for the list proposed to the Minister by the Prefect of Parisian Police, on whom the commissioners were therefore entirely dependent.
The commissioners wore "a full black habit à la française 22 with a tricolored belt with black fringes and a single-colored French hat." They were required to provide their own shelter, and their offices were to be open to the public at all times of day and night. It was Dubois who defined their scope of activity in Year VIII: the patency of public roads, streetlight maintenance, street cleanliness, security, supervision of cheap hotels, combating begging and vagrancy, prostitution, supplying markets, controlling bakeries, gambling, etc. The decree of 22 Ventôse, Year VIII (March 30, 1800) retained only twenty commissioners from the Directory era; the rest were dismissed immediately after the coup.
The staffing of these positions was excellent – the Parisian police commissioners included: the brilliant lawyer Jean-François Sobry; the author of the then-regarded guide to Paris, P.-Julien Alletz; Bréon from the Central Bureau; and Claude-François Chazot, Fouché's man. And above all, the erudite Louis François Beffara, police commissioner in the Mont-Blanc section. Beffara was the author of several studies on opera and was also the first to provide, based on notarial archives, the exact date of Molière's birth.
An inspector general was placed at the head of the peace officers. On December 22, 1802, Pierre-Hugues Veyrat became the head. He was a Genevan, previously engaged in watchmaking and mortgage lending. During the Revolution, he became a supporter of Jacobin ideas and then, in 1795, went into exile in Paris. On the eve of the coup d'état of 18 Fructidor, he exposed the activities of the counterpolice under Pichegru's orders and was rewarded with the position of inspector general in He quickly proved to be a troublesome figure. He was dismissed and reinstated three times. In 1802, when the Ministry of Police was abolished, he transferred to the Paris Prefecture. He was to play a leading role in the police rivalry, as he leveraged his position to create his own intelligence service, directly linked to the Tuileries.
Besides the official police, there existed a shadowy world of secret agents. The Police Prefecture was authorized to employ these assistants, euphemistically referred to as "intermediaries," and known to the populace as "spies" or "conduits." This secret police included traveling salesmen, innkeepers, prostitutes, servants, wigmakers, and socialites. Later, Jean Henry came up with the idea of using convicts, such as Vidocq. Vidocq's successes led him to become head of a special brigade composed of former prisoners, such as Coco Lacour, in 1811. Pasquier was forced to admit: "The trust that was too readily bestowed upon a convicted man had very negative consequences and contributed significantly to the decline of the police's prestige on several occasions."
Commissioners and peace officers constituted the administrative cadre of the police. To disperse gatherings, restore peace in the streets, make arrests, and round up beggars and prostitutes, special units assigned to maintaining order had to be used. The Revolution abolished all such units of the ancien régime. However, neither the National Guard, nor the gendarmerie units drawn from the provinces, nor the ephemeral Legion of Police could fill the void left by the night watch (le guet), the Paris guard (la garde de Paris), and the mounted public safety guard (maréchaussée). As late as 1802, the Prefect of Police was still criticizing the National Guard's shortcomings: "Complaints continue to arrive about the mediocrity of the National Guard's service. Generally, there is no one in the guardhouses."
Various projects were considered, including the revival of the night watch, with a popular character, as in the past, and the replacement of the National Guard with a municipal guard. Finally, a consular decree of October 14, 1802, established the municipal guard of Paris and abolished the stationary National Guard.
After the disbandment of the Legion of Police and until October 4, 1802, when the Paris Municipal Guard was established, security in the capital was to be provided by the National Guard and gendarmerie units drawn from the provinces. A decree of July 31, 1801, gave these units the name Elite Legion. It lost its importance when the municipal guard, consisting of 2,154 infantry and 180 cavalry, emerged. The Prefect of Police also commanded firefighters and prisons, including the Detention Center (Dépôt), where honest people, vagrants, beggars, thieves, fraudsters, and prostitutes were kept together, not to mention the beggars' shelters.
This demonstrates the immense power wielded by the Prefect of the Paris Police, who had assumed the powers of the former Chief of Police. He was, of course, subordinate to Fouché, but he had greater powers of action. Of course, he only had power in Paris, but Paris was where the government was located. Wouldn't this powerful Prefect then be tempted to become a rival to his own minister?
The Bourlac Affair was a complex intelligence operation during Napoleon's consulate, overseen by Joseph Fouché, aimed at infiltrating a royalist spy network operating between France and Jersey. The discovery and arrest of the network cemented Fouché's position as a master of the political police.
Broken from Rennes to Paris and interrogated by Desmarest, Prigent exposed the Anglo-royalist network operating in the west of the country. Fouché ordered the results of the interrogations to be immediately forwarded to Napoleon.
He also made a daring move: he sent one of his agents, Bourlac (actually Perlet, who had been feeding Fauche-Borel, a servant of the princes, with false information for three years), to London. Bourlac was received by Louis XVIII and spoke of Fouché as a supporter of the monarchy. A beautiful hoax that amused Napoleon. Its primary goal was to trap the last remaining agents of the royalist agency from Jersey.
To quickly close the case and satisfy Napoleon, Fouché ordered the arrest and execution of three men allegedly involved in the kidnapping (Chouans—royalist insurgents), despite their strong alibis and the lack of evidence against them.
Pierre Robinault de Saint-Régeant—a royalist involved in the anti-Napoleonic conspiracy, leader of a band of Chouans (Chouans) operating under the pseudonym "Pierrot."
Joseph Picot de Limoëlan—a participant in royalist plots, was a royalist and one of the main organizers of the failed assassination attempt on Napoleon Bonaparte on December 24, 1800, in Paris. He is known for his involvement in the preparation of the "infernal machine" (an explosive booby trap) intended to kill the First Consul.
Georges Cadoudal – leader of the Breton Chouans and the main organizer of royalist plots against Napoleon. He fought with arms against the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte.
Known as "Gideon," he commanded peasant troops in Brittany from 1800 to 1803 and organized a plot to assassinate the First Consul. He was executed in Paris.
Jersey, a dependency of the English Channel, was an important royalist stronghold during the English Civil War (17th century)
"An analysis of these documents shows," writes Fouché, "that there exists a secret, mystical, and very numerous organization whose ostensible purpose is to convert people. It was the lectures of Father Frayssinous [sic] at the seminary of Saint-Sulpice that most dangerously fired the imagination of Beaumès s. and several other young men, especially Alexis de Noailles and others who attended them. It was from these lectures that they drew that excessive fervor, that attachment to the Pope, and the spirit of fanaticism that distinguish them."45 However, Fouché does not discover the existence of a secret society behind the Congregation, namely the Knights of the Faith,246 modeled organizationally on the Freemasonry he intends to combat. The Knights of Faith are found behind the Malet Conspiracy, the elections of 1815, and in the political life of the Restoration era, yet their existence remained unrevealed... until a doctoral thesis in 1948!
The doctoral thesis, "The Comte Ferdinand de Bertier, 1782-1864, and the Congregation of Saints," was written in 1948 by Guillaume de Bertier de Sauvigny. Guillaume de Bertier de Sauvigny (1912–1998) was a French historian, Catholic priest, and member of the Marianist order. He specialized in the history of the Church in the 19th century and the history of France during the Restoration period. He is known, among other things, as the author of the work History of the Church. Volume IV. 1715-1848.
General Claude François de Malet's October 1812 conspiracy was an attempt to overthrow Napoleon Bonaparte's rule in France during his absence. It took advantage of Napoleon's absence, as he was on an expedition to Russia at the time.
The conspirator, Claude François de Malet, had previously been imprisoned for anti-Napoleonic activities. He was held in La Force prison in Paris.
On the night of October 28-29, 1812, he:
disguised himself in a general's uniform,
escaped from prison with several associates,
prepared false Senate decrees announcing Napoleon's death.
The documents claimed that the emperor had died on October 7 in Russia.
Alarmed by Fouché, Wellington, still under the Duke of Otranto's spell, pressured Louis XVIII to retain his Minister of Police: "He is the only bond that unites you with a significant portion of your people. Many people see him as the only guarantee of their personal safety, and if Your Majesty were to dismiss him, they would be thrown into a state of unrest that could lead to despair. On the other hand, the royalist party, which already displays scant common sense, could escape any government control."
These words must have impressed Louis XVIII, who postponed his decision to part ways with Fouché. Meanwhile, Decazes continued to submit alarming reports, even inventing the idea that the Duke of Orléans, with Fouché's help, was planning to slit the throat of the king and his family in the Tuileries. The Duchess of Angoulême, for her part, did not hide her disgust with the Minister of Police. Moreover, the first session of the "Incomparable Chamber" was approaching, and Talleyrand dreaded it, having a man like Fouché in his cabinet. But how could he remove him? If the king dismissed him, he would become a martyr.
The solution to the dilemma appeared in September. Vitrolles—still he—left us an account of the meeting of the Council of Ministers where Fouché was dealt a fatal blow:
The Council was drawing to a close, Talleyrand sat down on his desk; his bad leg dangled, the other resting on the parquet floor. The ministers had already closed their briefcases and were preparing to leave when Talleyrand said loudly enough for everyone to hear: "In my opinion, gentlemen, I now have to fill the most beautiful position the king can offer." "What position is this?" asked Mr. Pasquier, turning to face the Prime Minister. The Prince explained the difficulties and humiliations that would befall the ministers forced to negotiate with the Allied rulers regarding the ransom of France. What would be the position of our ambassadors with these powers later, and for a long time to come? Where would their dignity go? However, he added, there was one country, and only one, in which a royal minister would retain all the privileges of his rank and enjoy significant influence. And that minister, he said, was the one who would represent France in the United States.
As soon as the Prince uttered these last words, Fouché, who was still sitting across the table from the farthest corner, turned his small, sparkling eyes on me and looked me up and down, as if accusing me of the blow he had received. I must admit that this time, and only this time, I lowered my gaze before him. M. de Talleyrand, wanting to break the silence that had fallen after his statement, began to speak of America.
"It's such a beautiful country!" Don't you know it, Mr. Vitrolles? I know it, I've traveled it, I've lived in it; it's an extraordinary country. There are rivers there that we don't have here, the Potomac, for example, there's nothing more beautiful than the Potomac! Besides, there are wonderful forests, full of trees, of which we have several in boxes. What are they called? These are... these are..." "Junya," I said. "Exactly, forests of junya." He got tangled up in the Potomac and the junya. "None of this was understandable," Fouché understood.
In the end, it turned out that it wouldn't be America, but Dresden. On September 15, Louis XVIII appointed the Duke of Otranto as the King's Minister in Saxony. The disgrace was veiled, but it was disgrace nonetheless. Fouché resigned from his position as Minister of Police in a letter to the king, a letter that closely resembled a political testament: "I have made every effort to ensure that the only doctrine which, in my opinion, strengthens the royal power prevails. The future will show whether I was wrong. The establishment of peace and stability were the only means of salvation. The opposite of the establishment of peace is reaction, and the opposite of stability is the displacement of the throne from its present foundations and the addition of others. [...] The restoration of the throne was presented as a moral victory, which Your Majesty supposedly achieved. But this would assume that there were victors and losers in France. Accepting this for a moment imprudent hypothesis, I beseech Your Majesty to remember that peace always benefits the victors, while unrest only benefits the vanquished. [...] I gratefully accept, Sire, the embassy which Your Majesty has been kind enough to offer me as a pension". In another letter addressed to members of the cabinet, he predicted that the first flames of an almost inevitable civil war would soon be lit.
Talleyrand's cabinet lasted only a few days longer than Fouché's as minister.
Barras, cruel as ever, painted a scathing portrait of him: "In the year III, Fouché was still living in poverty, living in an attic with his wife, a former nun, a woman of equally vile character, ironically called 'the virtuous woman' because of her terrible ugliness. Redheaded like her husband, down to her eyelashes and eyebrows, she had a child, a worthy product of that hideous couple, no less red than the mother and father, a true albino, who, despite this, was obviously dear to the parents. It was natural for them to want to feed their little piglet."
But how? Fouché had transformed himself into an informer. With his talent for intrigue gaining access everywhere, he sent Barras daily information. The latter, embroiled in a ruthless struggle with the royalists, who in April 1797 won the elections renewing one-third of the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of Elders, could not refuse Fouché's support. Barras quotes one of his notes. In it, Fouché reports primarily on a conversation held in his presence between Edme-Bonaventure Courtois and Jean-Charles Bailleul, or perhaps Dominique Garat. Did this information prove useful to Barras in preparing the coup of 18 Fructidora? Possibly. But the greatest asset Barras held—the proof of the treason of General Pichegru, who had defected from the republicans to the royalists—was provided not by Fouché but by Bonaparte, who had found the information in the papers of a counterrevolutionary agent, the Comte d'Antraigues. Nevertheless, after the successful coup of 18 Fructidora, Fouché demanded his share of the loot: "Now it's the patriots who should eat quail and truffles." However, Barras encountered reservations from the Directory regarding Fouché. Thus, Joseph was forced to continue playing the role of informant in exchange for support.
While his notes from before the coup are rather uninteresting, the information he acquired later seems far more valuable. He was reportedly the first to warn Barras that Bonaparte was distancing himself. Hadn't the general confided in Fouché: "I can no longer count on Barras. On the one hand, he supports the Directory, on the other, he has a revolutionary soul and a Jacobin heart"? Did Bonaparte really share this reflection with Fouché? It's unlikely. Perhaps Fouché was trying to add value to himself? Or, more plausibly, Barras himself concocted Fouché's report to settle scores with Bonaparte? It's impossible to say. Although Barras writes very negatively about Fouché in his memoirs, there's much to suggest that he showed him understanding. Fouché won't repay him for this. For now, Barras encourages Fouché to delve into commercial and financial circles.
In 1809, he replaced Bertrand as head of the department. Limodin, who worked at the Central Office, was responsible for interrogations.
The second department, also consisting of three offices, dealt with murders, thefts, frauds, counterfeiting, and the supervision of budget hotels. The General Security Register, the ancestor of our judicial records, was kept here. This department was headed by Jean Henry, who devoted his life to pursuing criminals and made his debut as a subordinate of the Parisian police chief, Lenoir. At the police headquarters in Châtelet, he met Dubois. This strange figure inspired fear among criminals, who nicknamed him the "cunning angel." He was in poor health and rarely left his office; he mostly relied on deduction and had extensive knowledge of the practices of the escarpes, thieves who killed for loot. This department included the prison office, headed by a certain Parisot and later his son.
The third department, headed by Chicou, dealt with economic matters: streets, lighting, sweeping, mud removal, fires, and, above all, supplies for the capital.
The power of the Parisian police prefect stemmed not only from the offices under his command, but also from the units responsible for maintaining order in Paris: commissioners, peace officers, and inspectors.
Commissioners had existed since the ancien régime. They were too important not to be eliminated by the Revolution, and at the same time too useful to disappear forever. New commissioners were elected, but the system was so corrupt as to be unsatisfactory. According to the decree of 12 Messidor, Year VIII, the Parisian commissioners were to report to the Prefect of Police, and their number—forty-eight—remained unchanged. They were appointed by the First Consul from a list submitted by the Ministry of Police, with the names for the list proposed to the Minister by the Prefect of Parisian Police, on whom the commissioners were therefore entirely dependent.
The commissioners wore "a full black habit à la française 22 with a tricolored belt with black fringes and a single-colored French hat." They were required to provide their own shelter, and their offices were to be open to the public at all times of day and night. It was Dubois who defined their scope of activity in Year VIII: the patency of public roads, streetlight maintenance, street cleanliness, security, supervision of cheap hotels, combating begging and vagrancy, prostitution, supplying markets, controlling bakeries, gambling, etc. The decree of 22 Ventôse, Year VIII (March 30, 1800) retained only twenty commissioners from the Directory era; the rest were dismissed immediately after the coup.
The staffing of these positions was excellent – the Parisian police commissioners included: the brilliant lawyer Jean-François Sobry; the author of the then-regarded guide to Paris, P.-Julien Alletz; Bréon from the Central Bureau; and Claude-François Chazot, Fouché's man. And above all, the erudite Louis François Beffara, police commissioner in the Mont-Blanc section. Beffara was the author of several studies on opera and was also the first to provide, based on notarial archives, the exact date of Molière's birth.
An inspector general was placed at the head of the peace officers. On December 22, 1802, Pierre-Hugues Veyrat became the head. He was a Genevan, previously engaged in watchmaking and mortgage lending. During the Revolution, he became a supporter of Jacobin ideas and then, in 1795, went into exile in Paris. On the eve of the coup d'état of 18 Fructidor, he exposed the activities of the counterpolice under Pichegru's orders and was rewarded with the position of inspector general in He quickly proved to be a troublesome figure. He was dismissed and reinstated three times. In 1802, when the Ministry of Police was abolished, he transferred to the Paris Prefecture. He was to play a leading role in the police rivalry, as he leveraged his position to create his own intelligence service, directly linked to the Tuileries.
Besides the official police, there existed a shadowy world of secret agents. The Police Prefecture was authorized to employ these assistants, euphemistically referred to as "intermediaries," and known to the populace as "spies" or "conduits." This secret police included traveling salesmen, innkeepers, prostitutes, servants, wigmakers, and socialites. Later, Jean Henry came up with the idea of using convicts, such as Vidocq. Vidocq's successes led him to become head of a special brigade composed of former prisoners, such as Coco Lacour, in 1811. Pasquier was forced to admit: "The trust that was too readily bestowed upon a convicted man had very negative consequences and contributed significantly to the decline of the police's prestige on several occasions."
Commissioners and peace officers constituted the administrative cadre of the police. To disperse gatherings, restore peace in the streets, make arrests, and round up beggars and prostitutes, special units assigned to maintaining order had to be used. The Revolution abolished all such units of the ancien régime. However, neither the National Guard, nor the gendarmerie units drawn from the provinces, nor the ephemeral Legion of Police could fill the void left by the night watch (le guet), the Paris guard (la garde de Paris), and the mounted public safety guard (maréchaussée). As late as 1802, the Prefect of Police was still criticizing the National Guard's shortcomings: "Complaints continue to arrive about the mediocrity of the National Guard's service. Generally, there is no one in the guardhouses."
Various projects were considered, including the revival of the night watch, with a popular character, as in the past, and the replacement of the National Guard with a municipal guard. Finally, a consular decree of October 14, 1802, established the municipal guard of Paris and abolished the stationary National Guard.
After the disbandment of the Legion of Police and until October 4, 1802, when the Paris Municipal Guard was established, security in the capital was to be provided by the National Guard and gendarmerie units drawn from the provinces. A decree of July 31, 1801, gave these units the name Elite Legion. It lost its importance when the municipal guard, consisting of 2,154 infantry and 180 cavalry, emerged. The Prefect of Police also commanded firefighters and prisons, including the Detention Center (Dépôt), where honest people, vagrants, beggars, thieves, fraudsters, and prostitutes were kept together, not to mention the beggars' shelters.
This demonstrates the immense power wielded by the Prefect of the Paris Police, who had assumed the powers of the former Chief of Police. He was, of course, subordinate to Fouché, but he had greater powers of action. Of course, he only had power in Paris, but Paris was where the government was located. Wouldn't this powerful Prefect then be tempted to become a rival to his own minister?
The Bourlac Affair was a complex intelligence operation during Napoleon's consulate, overseen by Joseph Fouché, aimed at infiltrating a royalist spy network operating between France and Jersey. The discovery and arrest of the network cemented Fouché's position as a master of the political police.
Broken from Rennes to Paris and interrogated by Desmarest, Prigent exposed the Anglo-royalist network operating in the west of the country. Fouché ordered the results of the interrogations to be immediately forwarded to Napoleon.
He also made a daring move: he sent one of his agents, Bourlac (actually Perlet, who had been feeding Fauche-Borel, a servant of the princes, with false information for three years), to London. Bourlac was received by Louis XVIII and spoke of Fouché as a supporter of the monarchy. A beautiful hoax that amused Napoleon. Its primary goal was to trap the last remaining agents of the royalist agency from Jersey.
To quickly close the case and satisfy Napoleon, Fouché ordered the arrest and execution of three men allegedly involved in the kidnapping (Chouans—royalist insurgents), despite their strong alibis and the lack of evidence against them.
Pierre Robinault de Saint-Régeant—a royalist involved in the anti-Napoleonic conspiracy, leader of a band of Chouans (Chouans) operating under the pseudonym "Pierrot."
Joseph Picot de Limoëlan—a participant in royalist plots, was a royalist and one of the main organizers of the failed assassination attempt on Napoleon Bonaparte on December 24, 1800, in Paris. He is known for his involvement in the preparation of the "infernal machine" (an explosive booby trap) intended to kill the First Consul.
Georges Cadoudal – leader of the Breton Chouans and the main organizer of royalist plots against Napoleon. He fought with arms against the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte.
Known as "Gideon," he commanded peasant troops in Brittany from 1800 to 1803 and organized a plot to assassinate the First Consul. He was executed in Paris.
Jersey, a dependency of the English Channel, was an important royalist stronghold during the English Civil War (17th century)
"An analysis of these documents shows," writes Fouché, "that there exists a secret, mystical, and very numerous organization whose ostensible purpose is to convert people. It was the lectures of Father Frayssinous [sic] at the seminary of Saint-Sulpice that most dangerously fired the imagination of Beaumès s. and several other young men, especially Alexis de Noailles and others who attended them. It was from these lectures that they drew that excessive fervor, that attachment to the Pope, and the spirit of fanaticism that distinguish them."45 However, Fouché does not discover the existence of a secret society behind the Congregation, namely the Knights of the Faith,246 modeled organizationally on the Freemasonry he intends to combat. The Knights of Faith are found behind the Malet Conspiracy, the elections of 1815, and in the political life of the Restoration era, yet their existence remained unrevealed... until a doctoral thesis in 1948!
The doctoral thesis, "The Comte Ferdinand de Bertier, 1782-1864, and the Congregation of Saints," was written in 1948 by Guillaume de Bertier de Sauvigny. Guillaume de Bertier de Sauvigny (1912–1998) was a French historian, Catholic priest, and member of the Marianist order. He specialized in the history of the Church in the 19th century and the history of France during the Restoration period. He is known, among other things, as the author of the work History of the Church. Volume IV. 1715-1848.
General Claude François de Malet's October 1812 conspiracy was an attempt to overthrow Napoleon Bonaparte's rule in France during his absence. It took advantage of Napoleon's absence, as he was on an expedition to Russia at the time.
The conspirator, Claude François de Malet, had previously been imprisoned for anti-Napoleonic activities. He was held in La Force prison in Paris.
On the night of October 28-29, 1812, he:
disguised himself in a general's uniform,
escaped from prison with several associates,
prepared false Senate decrees announcing Napoleon's death.
The documents claimed that the emperor had died on October 7 in Russia.
Alarmed by Fouché, Wellington, still under the Duke of Otranto's spell, pressured Louis XVIII to retain his Minister of Police: "He is the only bond that unites you with a significant portion of your people. Many people see him as the only guarantee of their personal safety, and if Your Majesty were to dismiss him, they would be thrown into a state of unrest that could lead to despair. On the other hand, the royalist party, which already displays scant common sense, could escape any government control."
These words must have impressed Louis XVIII, who postponed his decision to part ways with Fouché. Meanwhile, Decazes continued to submit alarming reports, even inventing the idea that the Duke of Orléans, with Fouché's help, was planning to slit the throat of the king and his family in the Tuileries. The Duchess of Angoulême, for her part, did not hide her disgust with the Minister of Police. Moreover, the first session of the "Incomparable Chamber" was approaching, and Talleyrand dreaded it, having a man like Fouché in his cabinet. But how could he remove him? If the king dismissed him, he would become a martyr.
The solution to the dilemma appeared in September. Vitrolles—still he—left us an account of the meeting of the Council of Ministers where Fouché was dealt a fatal blow:
The Council was drawing to a close, Talleyrand sat down on his desk; his bad leg dangled, the other resting on the parquet floor. The ministers had already closed their briefcases and were preparing to leave when Talleyrand said loudly enough for everyone to hear: "In my opinion, gentlemen, I now have to fill the most beautiful position the king can offer." "What position is this?" asked Mr. Pasquier, turning to face the Prime Minister. The Prince explained the difficulties and humiliations that would befall the ministers forced to negotiate with the Allied rulers regarding the ransom of France. What would be the position of our ambassadors with these powers later, and for a long time to come? Where would their dignity go? However, he added, there was one country, and only one, in which a royal minister would retain all the privileges of his rank and enjoy significant influence. And that minister, he said, was the one who would represent France in the United States.
As soon as the Prince uttered these last words, Fouché, who was still sitting across the table from the farthest corner, turned his small, sparkling eyes on me and looked me up and down, as if accusing me of the blow he had received. I must admit that this time, and only this time, I lowered my gaze before him. M. de Talleyrand, wanting to break the silence that had fallen after his statement, began to speak of America.
"It's such a beautiful country!" Don't you know it, Mr. Vitrolles? I know it, I've traveled it, I've lived in it; it's an extraordinary country. There are rivers there that we don't have here, the Potomac, for example, there's nothing more beautiful than the Potomac! Besides, there are wonderful forests, full of trees, of which we have several in boxes. What are they called? These are... these are..." "Junya," I said. "Exactly, forests of junya." He got tangled up in the Potomac and the junya. "None of this was understandable," Fouché understood.
In the end, it turned out that it wouldn't be America, but Dresden. On September 15, Louis XVIII appointed the Duke of Otranto as the King's Minister in Saxony. The disgrace was veiled, but it was disgrace nonetheless. Fouché resigned from his position as Minister of Police in a letter to the king, a letter that closely resembled a political testament: "I have made every effort to ensure that the only doctrine which, in my opinion, strengthens the royal power prevails. The future will show whether I was wrong. The establishment of peace and stability were the only means of salvation. The opposite of the establishment of peace is reaction, and the opposite of stability is the displacement of the throne from its present foundations and the addition of others. [...] The restoration of the throne was presented as a moral victory, which Your Majesty supposedly achieved. But this would assume that there were victors and losers in France. Accepting this for a moment imprudent hypothesis, I beseech Your Majesty to remember that peace always benefits the victors, while unrest only benefits the vanquished. [...] I gratefully accept, Sire, the embassy which Your Majesty has been kind enough to offer me as a pension". In another letter addressed to members of the cabinet, he predicted that the first flames of an almost inevitable civil war would soon be lit.
Talleyrand's cabinet lasted only a few days longer than Fouché's as minister.
November 24, 2014
Este libro es muy entretenido sobre todo por la manera de ser de Fouche un hombre que sin ser un genio en el conocimiento de la ciencia logra tomar cargos muy importantes como político he aquí algunas citas que me gustaron de este texto:
Una revolución -lo sabe muy bien este hombre precozmente sutil- nunca pertenece al primero, al que la inicia, sino al último, al que la culmina asiéndose a ella como a una presa.
hasta que no se aniquilen los apasionados no empieza la época de los que supieron esperar, de los prudentes. Sólo se decidirá cuando la batalla se vislumbre ganada.
El genio creador, sobre todo, necesita temporalmente este aislamiento forzado para medir desde la profundidad de la desesperación, desde la lejanía del destierro, el horizonte y la altura de su verdadera misión. Los más altos mensajes de la Humanidad han venido del destierro; los creadores de las grandes religiones: Moisés, Mahoma, Buda, todos tuvieron que entrar en el silencio del desierto, en «el no estar entre los hombres», antes de poder pronunciar la palabra decisiva. La ceguera de Milton, la sordera de Beethoven, la cárcel de Dostoiewski, la prisión de Cervantes, el encierro de Lutero en la Wartburg, el destierro de Dante y la extirpación voluntaria de Nietzsche a las zonas heladas de la Engadina, fueron exigencias del propio genio, ordenadas secretamente contra la voluntad despierta del hombre mismo.
En el fracaso es donde conoce el artista su verdadera relación con la obra: en la derrota, el general, sus faltas, y en la pérdida del favor, el hombre de Estado, la verdadera perspectiva política. La riqueza permanente debilita; el aplauso constante hace insensible; únicamente la interrupción procura al vario ritmo de la vida nueva tensión y elasticidad creadora, únicamente la desgraciada mirada profunda y extensa para la realidad del mundo
Enseñanza dura, pero enseñanza y aprendizaje es todo destierro: al débil le amasa de nuevo la voluntad, al indeciso le hace enérgico; al duro, mas duro aún. Nunca es el destierro para el verdadero fuerte una mengua: es siempre un tónico de su fuerza.
Demasiado tiempo, demasiado dolorosamente ha sufrido el horrible «estar abajo», en la suciedad del desprecio y de la miseria... Ahora se empina con todas sus fuerzas hacia ese mundo donde se compra por dinero el Poder, porque desde el Poder se acuña nuevamente el dinero.
Una revolución -lo sabe muy bien este hombre precozmente sutil- nunca pertenece al primero, al que la inicia, sino al último, al que la culmina asiéndose a ella como a una presa.
hasta que no se aniquilen los apasionados no empieza la época de los que supieron esperar, de los prudentes. Sólo se decidirá cuando la batalla se vislumbre ganada.
El genio creador, sobre todo, necesita temporalmente este aislamiento forzado para medir desde la profundidad de la desesperación, desde la lejanía del destierro, el horizonte y la altura de su verdadera misión. Los más altos mensajes de la Humanidad han venido del destierro; los creadores de las grandes religiones: Moisés, Mahoma, Buda, todos tuvieron que entrar en el silencio del desierto, en «el no estar entre los hombres», antes de poder pronunciar la palabra decisiva. La ceguera de Milton, la sordera de Beethoven, la cárcel de Dostoiewski, la prisión de Cervantes, el encierro de Lutero en la Wartburg, el destierro de Dante y la extirpación voluntaria de Nietzsche a las zonas heladas de la Engadina, fueron exigencias del propio genio, ordenadas secretamente contra la voluntad despierta del hombre mismo.
En el fracaso es donde conoce el artista su verdadera relación con la obra: en la derrota, el general, sus faltas, y en la pérdida del favor, el hombre de Estado, la verdadera perspectiva política. La riqueza permanente debilita; el aplauso constante hace insensible; únicamente la interrupción procura al vario ritmo de la vida nueva tensión y elasticidad creadora, únicamente la desgraciada mirada profunda y extensa para la realidad del mundo
Enseñanza dura, pero enseñanza y aprendizaje es todo destierro: al débil le amasa de nuevo la voluntad, al indeciso le hace enérgico; al duro, mas duro aún. Nunca es el destierro para el verdadero fuerte una mengua: es siempre un tónico de su fuerza.
Demasiado tiempo, demasiado dolorosamente ha sufrido el horrible «estar abajo», en la suciedad del desprecio y de la miseria... Ahora se empina con todas sus fuerzas hacia ese mundo donde se compra por dinero el Poder, porque desde el Poder se acuña nuevamente el dinero.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews