Dino Dorothée - Memoirs of the Duchesse de Dino (Afterwards Duchesse de Talleyrand et de Sagan), 1836-1840

Paris, February 22, 1836. – M. de Talleyrand is in a very bad temper: the newspapers and public opinion all regard him as responsible for the new Ministry: the names have at length appeared in this morning's Moniteur . 12 12 The Cabinet was as follows: M. Thiers, President of the Council and Minister of Foreign Affairs; M. Sauzet, Keeper of the Seals; M. de Montalivet, Minister of the Interior; M. d'Argout, Financial Minister; M. Passy, Minister of Commerce and Public Works; M. Pelet de la Lozère, Minister of Education; Marshal Maison, Minister of War; Admiral Duperré, Minister of Naval Affairs. He, however, has had nothing to do with it, and as the sudden rise of M. Thiers has not met with universal approval, the English being particularly incensed, M. de Talleyrand is aroused to great irritation by all that he hears upon the subject, and vents his anger upon Paris, his age, and his position, and keenly regrets that he ever left London.

Paris, February 23, 1836. – Yesterday, on returning home at the end of the morning, I found M. Berryer at my door; he had just left the Chamber of Deputies, where Thiers had been speaking. Berryer has a high opinion of the talent, the intellectual power, and the capacity of Thiers. Berryer is himself the most unprejudiced, impartial, and simple of characters; there is nothing artificial, affected, or extreme about him; it is difficult to think of him as a party man. In my opinion, no one was ever less a party man, and perhaps he would be glad if he could avoid the necessity of taking sides entirely. The ease, the lightness, the gentleness, and the simplicity of his conversation are the more creditable to him by contrast with his profession and his position. The justice of his judgment and the kindness which is most constantly characteristic of it compel confidence in his opinions and his statements.

Thiers' speech was received with marked coldness by the Chamber. The fact is fortunate for him, in my opinion. There is some danger that the intoxication of success might lead to his fall, and anything which will keep him from disaster can only be useful and for his good.

Paris, February 24, 1836. – M. Molé dined here yesterday. His bearing shows some traces of coldness and disappointment. He was unwilling to act in concert with M. Dupin in the matter of the Ministry; consequently the latter, who commanded several votes in the French Academy, withdrew them, and so brought about the rejection of M. Molé; he then observed: "M. Molé would not be my colleague, and I do not care for him as my fellow Academician."

Paris is likely to become increasingly difficult as a place of residence. Apart from the two great dynastic divisions which separate society, we shall now have to deal with all the factions caused by disappointed ambition, the Molé, Broglie, Guizot, and Dupin factions, and finally the Thiers faction. These will all be as bitterly hostile to one another as the Legitimists are to the Moderate Party. All these factions will never find any such common point of amalgamation as the Château might and should become; on the contrary, some object to the King, others to our house. Detestation and malignancy are mutual, but no one is willing to examine himself or to recognise that there are faults on all sides, and that the real causes of blame are to be found in himself. How strange is the blindness and how great the ill-faith of men, especially of those who are involved in public affairs and interests!

Paris, March 4, 1836. – Yesterday, at the house of M. de Talleyrand, M. Mignet related that Marchand, a former valet de chambre under the Emperor, proposed to publish a commentary upon the "Commentaries" of Cæsar, which Napoleon had dictated to him in the last weeks of his life in St. Helena. Marchand often spoke to M. Mignet of Napoleon's last moments, of the loneliness and emptiness of his life; in illustration, he said that one evening when the Emperor, who was then very ill, was in bed, he pointed to the foot of the bed and said to him: "Marchand, sit down there and tell me something." Marchand said to him: "Dear me, sire, what can I tell you who have done and seen so much?" "Tell me about your youth; that will be simple and true, and will interest me," replied the Emperor. There is something very pathetic about this little dialogue. What teaching might not Bossuet have drawn from these few words – Bossuet, who did not disdain to introduce the somewhat trivial anecdote of the fowl into the funeral oration upon the Palatine! Surely the greatest homage to Bossuet is the fact that every great misfortune, every triumph or failure, makes us turn towards the Eagle of Meaux, who alone could extol, lament, and immortalise them worthily.

Paris, March 5, 1836. – Yesterday morning MM. Berryer and Thiers met at my house. I think it would have been impossible to have been present at a conversation more animated, sparkling, witty, surprising, kind, sincere, free, and true, or more devoid of all party spirit, than that which then arose between these two men, so different and so highly gifted. I also thought that it would never finish; they did not go until after six o'clock.

Paris, March 7, 1836. – M. Royer-Collard introduced me yesterday to M. de Tocqueville, the author of "Democracy in America." He seemed to me to be a nice little man, simple and modest, with an intellectual expression. We talked a great deal about England, and our views upon the destiny of the country were quite in harmony.

Paris, March 9, 1836. – I had several times glanced at the "Imitation of Jesus Christ." Whether it was that my knowledge of others and myself was only superficial or that my mind was ill-prepared and too wandering, I had seen no great difference between this famous work and the "Journée du Chrétien" and the "Petit Paroissien." I had often been surprised at the great reputation which this book enjoyed, but had never found any pleasure in reading it. Chance led me to open it the other day with Pauline; the first lines caught my attention, and I have since been reading it with ever increasing admiration. What intellectual power beneath the highest simplicity of form! What profound knowledge of the deepest recesses of the human heart! What beauty and enlightenment! And yet it is the work of an unknown monk. Nothing humiliates me more than a failure of self-knowledge or shows me more clearly in what darkness I was sunk.

Paris, March 10, 1836. – Yesterday I went with the Duchesse de Montmorency to a ball, given by Madame Salomon de Rothschild, the mother. The house is the most magnificent that can be conceived, and is therefore known as the Temple of Solomon. It is infinitely superior to her daughter-in-law's house, because the proportions are higher and greater. The luxury of it is indescribable, but in good taste – pure Renaissance, without any mixture of other styles; the gallery in particular is worthy of Chenonceaux, and one might have thought one's self at an entertainment given by the Valois. In the chief room the armchairs are made of gilt bronze instead of gilt wood, and cost a thousand francs apiece. The dining-hall is like the nave of a cathedral. All was well arranged and admirably lighted; there was no crushing, and every courtesy.

Paris, March 11, 1836. – Yesterday I went to Saint-Thomas d'Aquin, to hear the Abbé de Ravignan, formerly the King's procureur ; he is a friend of Berryer, who praises him greatly, and a brother-in-law of General Exelmans; I had known him in the Pyrenees, where I had been struck by the beautiful expression of his face. He is a good preacher, with an excellent delivery, while his style is pure and refined, but rather logical and argumentative than warm or sympathetic. He therefore lays more stress upon evangelical dogma than upon morality, and seemed to me to be a man of talent rather than a great preacher.