"This Dark Business: The Secret War Against Napoleon" Topic

Paul,

I spent my days domiciled in the Dawghouse reading all of Clayton's book, which I bought from Amazon.uk several months ago. It is a better book in some areas than Elizabeth Sparrow's earlier work on various British and French espionage and other nefarious doings during the same period.

But…

I think Clayton tried too hard to make his point. That in itself made me a bit suspicious, so I paid particular attention to the sources, many of which were archival and primary, many from what used to be the PRO, where I too spent some fun-filled weeks back in the day.

I didn't see any real smoking guns with regard to direct orders for assassination attempts. I didn't see much in the way of overt offers to pay to play, as it were. I did see a boatload of quotes from governmental and individual sources, and therein is the issue for me.

I think we are all too familiar with folks who either make up sources from whole cloth--Hofschroer and Hamilton-Williams come to mind, those who cherry-pick entire sources or parts of them--Dywer is an expert at that, and those who live and die with tried but true secondary works. That being said, unless I can read the entire document, I'm going to remain a wee bit skeptical regarding the premise that Britain was directly involved in the assassination business. Yes, I know, Cadoudal, but financing the bumblings of a bunch of incompetent emigres without correspondence, documents, secret code rings, or the like that state the explicit purpose of the funds is still a reach, and not proof.

Did Clayton show the British were up to their necks in the usual diplomatic and sub rosa shenanigans to embarrass, humiliate, or assist in the downfall of an inconvenient--and threatening--foreign government? Indeed he did. I saw for myself in British archives the lengths Whitehall went--and the money paid out--to discredit and have recalled a particularly infuriating French ambassador to Portugal, so it is not a historical reach to see that sort of activity played out on a larger scale. And Clayton does show this quite convincingly.

But assassination? I didn't see it, possibly because I don't like wearing a tinfoil hat.

So that's my opinion of a book I did read, cover to cover. Other folks may well have a different view, which is perfectly fine and dandy, but in order for that view to count, they have to do what I just did and Read the Book.

I have also read Clayton's book and agree with Maggie C's comments. He obviously wanted to find hard evidence of the involvement of the British government in the assassination attempts (the pro-French bias is evident throughout the book) – the fact that he could not doesn't mean that they weren't involved, but his source material is pretty comprehensive, so it is unlikely that anyone else will find the 'smoking gun'.

There is plenty of evidence that the government were trying to undermine the French government, and I think it would be surprising if they weren't, but complicity in assassination attempts remains unproven.

Thank's Maggie and Paul for your balanced, excellent replies.

There is no doubt that the British Government were out to undermine the French seeing as they were at war, but then, so must the French in reciprocation. If they weren't, then they were failing in the in their duty to Republican/imperial France.

I couldn't read the book though. I even tried again last week because of this thread but I just couldn't struggle through Claytons's diatribe. £17.50 GBP and time of my life well wasted.

Gazzola

I never said anything would be disclosed in Clayton's book because I would have had to have read it and known that to be a fact.

And I posted: "Why not read the book yourself and come back here with the evidence that you think may be in the book." Notice the words 'think' and 'may'?

But I have not yet even bought it, let alone read it.

Hence my sentence above.

So could you possibly consider reading it, since you have actually bought it.

See my post to Maggie and Paul above regarding reading it.

It is a puzzle as to why you would buy it in the first place if you are not going to read it?

Because I haven't the special powers to know what a book holds within without actually (trying to) reading it.

It might or might not offer something worth debating, who knows. But one has to read it, all of it, not just bits here and there. You never know what you might (or might not) be missing. I'm sure everyone would keen to hear your take on the book.

See Maggie and Paul's posts above:

The following are two quotes used in the subject book, pages 201, 211, respectfully, which reflect an inaccurate and prejudicial 'view' of Napoleon's character and that are drawn from period references:

'As to Buonaparte himself, there is every feature in his character, every circumstance in his conduct, to render it certain that no species of fortune, mental and bodily, no sort of infamy, which a malignant spirit, a depraved imagination, and a heart black with crimes of the deepest dye, can possibly suggest, or a hand, still reeking with the blood of murdered innocence and stimulated by the most insatiable thirst of vengeance, can inflict, which will not be exhausted upon the conquered inhabitants of the British empire.-The Anti-Jacobin Review, XV (1803), 332-333.

'A revolutionist by constitution, a conqueror by subordination, cruel and unjust by instinct, insulting in victory, mercenary in his patronage; an inexorable plunderer and murderer, purchased by the victims whose credulity he betrays, as terrible by his artifices as by his arms, dishonoring valor with ferocity, and by the studied abuse of public faith, crowning immorality with the palms of philosophy, tyranny and atheism with the cloak of religion, and oppression wit the cap of liberty.'-Revolutionary Plutarch, II (1804), 204/227.

What is interesting is comparing these 'viewpoints' with those on the forum who post like-comments and clearly demonstrates the origin of those negative comments with period British anti-Napoleonic propaganda.

"….which reflect an inaccurate and prejudicial 'view' of Napoleon's character.."
Only in your subjective opinion – which, fortunately, has no more value than anybody-else's on this forum.

With the exception that I can support my 'opinion' with credible source material, both primary and secondary.

And I wouldn't consider my 'opinion' subjective, but objective and based on the evidence not on British or allied propaganda.

For reference:

Revolutionary Plutarch:

link

Anti-Jacobin Review:

link

Musketballs, I am forever in your debt for the Revolutionary Plutarch link. I read the beginning in the 1806 version with amazement--what stunning hyperbole couched in such overweening and overwrought language. I have to ask: who is the diligent author of this… this book of National Enquirer/Daily Mail bilge? He deserves a medal, to be sure.

Of course, I had to read his little chapter about Marshal Lannes, and nearly choked on my wine. Where in the name of all that is holy did that stuff come from? Never mind--it's even more fun than SNL.

But do tell--you didn't mean for anyone to take it seriously, did you?

Hi Maggie:

The author of Plutarch (or at least the 'Gentleman in Paris' credited as the source) is usually assumed to be the enigmatic Lewis Goldsmith, whose poison-pen was famously for hire…including to Napoleon, incidentally. I'm not sure he ever received the Legion of Honour for his services, though.

As to how seriously we should take it, do we have to believe all the stories to take it seriously? There's obviously a jumble of fact, exaggeration and outright fiction running all through the work (no different from modern tabloid technique, you could say).

If we look at the section on Napoleon himself, for example, we find Napoleon being credited with a letter written by 'Brutus Buonaparte' (an interesting near-miss…'Brutus' was actually Lucien); then we're told he renamed himself Ali Buonaparte in Egypt (Is it because I is Corsican?). Well, no, he never stopped being Napoleon – the Ali B thing was someone else's idea.

So, not exactly an academic work…but, nor is it one of the ghostwritten memoirs that litter the 19c like literary cowpats, or part of the twaddle created in the nationalist history-wars that followed the arrival of 'Napoleon III'. It's the stories that were being told at the time, and for which there was an obvious thirst, given how well 'Plutarch' sold. So, yes, we can take it 'seriously' in that regard.

Of course, the alleged involvement of Goldsmith raises the even more interesting question: How many of those nasty rumours and salacious stories were doing the rounds in Paris salons before Goldsmith shared them with a British readership? We'll never know, sadly…but it's something to consider before dismissing Plutarch as just 'British Propaganda'.

Anyway, in the spirit of 'International Womens Day', here's the Female Revolutionary Plutarch as well.

link

Plutarch is much too hilarious to be propaganda, and I doubt anyone took it entirely seriously as such. Perhaps it's more in the vein of the infamous "Grub Street" authors who sold their books, pamphlets, and broadsides on the Pont Neuf.

Or The Onion, in today's world.

To our modern eyes, 'Der Sturmer' is too hilarious to be taken seriously. Likewise with 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.

Yet in their own chronological and cultural context both of these were taken all too seriously. Even when the Protocols were proven to be plagiarised from a c19 French satire, many people still took it seriously.

If we were informed that the starving people of North Korea are told that the DMZ is there to stop South Koreans fleeing North to live in Socialist Paradise, or that they're told that having long hair lowers intelligence because the hair sucks nutrients from the brain, we'd most likely think that was too hilarious to be serious propaganda. But both those things are actually true. When you control the only access people have to news, you can pretty much get away with anything, even in the modern age with its satellite tv's, mobile phones, teh internets, historically high literacy, mass publication of books, magazines and newspapers etc

I think we modern types really struggle to grasp how powerful publications – whether books and newspapers, or even just pamphlets and niche journals – were back when the only sources of news was the written word for a minority who could read, and nothing but word of mouth for the rest.

There's a reason Bonaparte, like all dictators, censored the hell out of the domestic press, demanded his representatives abroad (like Bourrienne in Hamburg) do the same, and even demanded the British government censor the British papers on his behalf. And there's a reason that in the smuggling trade that flourished between Britain and France throughout the whole war, one of the most avidly sought after items from the British side were newspapers – Bonaparte didn't get his way.

As for 'Grub Street'…in the Lannes section the author attributes Lannes' posting to Lisbon as the result of a row with Bonaparte over money missing from the chest of the Guard. That's a remarkably good guess for a hack supposedly sitting in London and churning out trash for a farthing a line.

I think we modern types really struggle to grasp how powerful publications – whether books and newspapers, or even just pamphlets and niche journals – were back when the only sources of news was the written word for a minority who could read, and nothing but word of mouth for the rest.

I don't think it has changed at all, the press and media still manipulate us – or trying to do so.

For Karl Marx – religion was opium for the people, not it is the news.

Only in your subjective opinion – which, fortunately, has no more value than anybody-else's on this forum.

I agree – my subjective opinion, based on most reliable ;-)) – sources, primary, secondary, tertiary or whatever, is that – to put it mildly Boney was a ruthless dictator and an egomaniac who cared only about his own interest – for his honour he was prepared to get millions of lives killed.

And I insist that my subjective opinion, as Brechtels for example, has no more value than anybody – else's on this forum.

I agree – my subjective opinion, based on most reliable ;-)) – sources, primary, secondary, tertiary or whatever, is that – to put it mildly Boney was a ruthless dictator and an egomaniac who cared only about his own interest – for his honour he was prepared to get millions of lives killed.

And those sources are…?

dibble

Using Maggie and Paul's posts as an excuse for not reading or stating what the book does or does not contain is just comical, but typical dibble! LOL

No, you don't need 'special powers' in order to find what a book contains. You just buy it and read to find out. But, you bought it but didn't read or couldn't read it or whatever excuse you feel appropriate. LOL

And which part of 'It is not on the top of my list buy. I am far more interested in new (and old) Napoleonic and Revolutionary Wars titles covering battles and military campaigns' did you not understand?

I really was hoping you would have offered what Maggie and Paul did later after your posts, when you could have given us your honest opinion on the book.

But really, I would not be expecting the book to disclose a dusty 'top secret Assassinate Napoleon file' that had been hidden away somewhere and recently discovered. LOL The British government of the time would be far too careful in making sure there was nothing definite available that might incriminate them in any way. They're the good guys, remember! LOL

Do you post such as this out of habit?

Gazzola

Using Maggie and Paul's posts as an excuse for not reading or stating what the book does or does not contain is just comical, but typical dibble! LOL

My post referring you to Maggie and Paul's post was so I didn't have to repeat to you my reasons for not reading the book as I had already explained my reasons in the post to them and elsewhere.

Any chance that one day, you could use quotes in your replies?

No, you don't need 'special powers' in order to find what a book contains. You just buy it and read to find out. But, you bought it but didn't read or couldn't read it or whatever excuse you feel appropriate. LOL

Notice in your own words: "It is a puzzle as to why you would buy it in the first place if you are not going to read it?"

But methinks you really think that I haven't got the book and haven't read any of it.

And which part of 'It is not on the top of my list buy. I am far more interested in new (and old) Napoleonic and Revolutionary Wars titles covering battles and military campaigns' did you not understand?

I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean in this part of your post or what it refers to in the post you are 'quoting' from. Please see above pertaining to your lack of 'quoting' and your past posts as examples.

I really was hoping you would have offered what Maggie and Paul did later after your posts when you could have given us your honest opinion on the book.

I will not give an opinion other than the one I had already given above. I have not read the book through and nor will I.

But really, I would not be expecting the book to disclose a dusty 'top secret Assassinate Napoleon file' that had been hidden away somewhere and recently discovered. LOL The British government of the time would be far too careful in making sure there was nothing definite available that might incriminate them in any way. They're the good guys, remember! LOL

A response I would expect tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorists and Flat-Earthers to use.

Be aware John! I have posted in the past that I would not respond to you if you persist in posting to me without quoting. I have never put anyone on 'ignore' on any site that I frequent or have frequented and won't start with you. But I will not respond anymore to you if you fail to """QUOTE""" me in replies to my postings.

Oh to have the Dawghouse concession. A pot of gold at the end of the dungeon corridor and a fine thing to behold but not worth a damn in a fight.

I'm a little confused. Are we talking about Saints or Sinners?

To make my position perfectly clear, I'm an Anglophile whose a bit of a Bonapartiste.

I suppose Bill could always try making the inmates wear pink underwear…might work.

Musketballs:

"As for 'Grub Street'…in the Lannes section the author attributes Lannes' posting to Lisbon as the result of a row with Bonaparte over money missing from the chest of the Guard. That's a remarkably good guess for a hack supposedly sitting in London and churning out trash for a farthing a line."

The row--which is an overstatement, unless one considers being yelled at by Bonaparte is a row--was the reason, on the surface, for the Lisbon posting. The subtext, however, was Bonaparte's need for someone to stir things up in Portugal and disrupt the British hegemony there as much as possible, and he picked the absolutely perfect person for that job.

I don't think that was a guess by Plutarch; the Consular Guard incident was publicized in not only the British press--"Just look what Bonaparte has stooped to in the election of his diplomatic emissaries! The horror!"-- as well as in Whitehall diplomatic documents.

I'm surprised Plutarch didn't mention flipping the British ambassador in his coach into a ditch…