THE CAMPAIGN OF 1815. 151 



pour servir d, Vhistoire de France en 1815, subsequently re-published 

 in 1830 as Volume IX. of the Memoirs dictated at St. Helena. These 

 volumes, according to certain Fi"ench authorities, are full of mistakes, 

 misrepresentations and inexact statements. For some years, how- 

 ever, they passed unquestioned. In 1840 the Duke of Elchingen, 

 second son of Marshal Ney, with the view of restoring his father's 

 memory, which he deemed unjustly assailed by Napoleon, gave the first 

 shock to their authority by publishing a collection of the orders and 

 letters of the Emperor to the Marshal, and also the result of enquiries 

 made by himself among officers then surviving as to what actually 

 happened. Other memoirs, such as those of Grouchy and Gdrard, 

 were also published. Between 1839 and 1842 appeared Alison's 

 Europe. Siborne's account of the Waterloo Campaign, which, 

 although trustworthy, contains too much fulsome eulogy of the "Great 

 Duke," was published in 1844. The German, or Pi'ussian, view of 

 the matter, as given by Von Damitz and Von Clausewitz, had been 

 published in 1837 and 1835. Thus conflicting materials accumulated. 

 At last, in 1857, there appeared the " Histoire de la Gampagne de 

 1815," by Lieut.-Colonel Chari-as, which, although not as commonly 

 known to English readers as it ought to be, must ever be consulted 

 as an elaborately minute account of the campaign. It must be read 

 with caution, as it is very unfair to Napoleon in many points, while 

 its author claims an eager desire to do him justice. A critical 

 examination will lead to the conviction that the desire, if it i-eally 

 existed, was not carried out. M. Edgar Quinet's " Histoire de la 

 Gampagne de 1815" was published in 1862. He follows in Charras' 

 footsteps. Thiers also gives a version of the events, which should 

 be read as a corrective of Charras. If Napoleon threw the blame of 

 the disaster upon others, a certain school of French writers, of whom 

 Charras and Quinet ai^e types, have not been slack in retorting on 

 him. He is made responsible, as far as possible, for the unfortunate 

 issue of the campaign, and in his shortcomings is found some solace 

 to wounded French pride. In using both Charras and Quinet this 

 fact must be borne in mind, and even-handed justice will be forced to 

 modify their conclusions on many points in Napoleon's favour. 



The divergence comes up first with refei-ence to Napoleon's actions 

 after he had landed in France. The anti-Napoleonic school minimize 

 in every way what was done, but the general impression on this sub- 

 ject is that the Emperor displayed wondei'ful genius and energy. 



