ARTICLES

In the course of the project to publish the complete correspondance of Napoleon, I received from the University of Princeton (USA) a photocopy of a very interesting document. It was the body of a letter and a postscript, written by Napoleon Bonaparte to an anonymus citizen. In the body of the letter, the exhausted general-in-chief of the Army of Italy requests support for his request for leave from the army and asks for a place in France to be prepared for him where he could rest. In the postscript, he damns all women (particularly his own wife). The document seemed not to have been published before. I have called it (1). Shortly afterwards, I received from the University of Vilnius (Lithuania) a photocopy of document written by Bonaparte held at the library there. Strangely, this document was identical to that held at Princeton. I have called it (2). Since both (1) and (2) are in the hand of Napoleon, it is exceedingly unlikely that one is a copy of the other. Indeed, had they  not both been period documents, you would have said they were photocopies. Subsequently, I discovered in the memoirs of the Count Horace de Viel-Castel a citation of another document (or possibly one of the two documents already mentioned) with the same contents as those held at Princeton and Vilnius. I have called it (3). After further research, other related documents began to appear, however, only containing parts of texts, in other words, either the body of the letter or the postscript, but  not both. These are : a complete minute held at the S.[ervice] H.[istorique de l']A.[rmée de] T.[erre], (France) (numbered 4), two texts published by Coston with facsimiles; numbered 5 and 6), a letter (previously part of the Brouwet collection; numbered 7), two texts published by Brotonne (numbered 8 and 9). I have called these the 'partial documents'.
 
In this complicated situation, two questions are uppermost:
- are the Princeton/Vilnius documents composite facsimiles or originals?
- can the addressee, date and place of the letter and postscript be ascertained?
 
The first part of the discussion will concern the Princeton/Vilnius/Viel-Castel documents (1 to 3), the second section will deal with the 'partial documents (4 to 9).

1: The Princeton document, comprising a letter and a postscript, both in the hand of Bonaparte
Shelfmark: Princeton University Library, General Mss [Misc.] C0047, Box NA, Subfolder 1, 1 letter [1796 ?]
Without addressee; place: Passeriano ; date : 4 Vendémiaire, 25 Septembre [1797], signed Bonaparte.
Despite the fact that the year is not recorded, the date 1797 is certain since we know that this was the only time Bonaparte was at Passeriano, in other words, September/October, 1797. The hand is that of Napoleon Bonaparte.
 
2: The Vilnius document, comprising a letter and a postscript, both in the hand of Bonaparte
Shelfmark: Vilnius University Library, VUBRS F48-300
Identical to the Princeton document.
 
3: Letter cited in the memoirs of the Count de Viel-Castel
Mémoires du comte Horace de Viel-Castel sur le règne de Napoléon III, 1851-1864, Paris: chez tous les libraires, 6 vol
Addressee: Barras; place: "Italy"; no date specified
«There is currently for sale at a dealer in armour, a curiosity enthusuasiast, residing on the Quai Conti, a letter of Bonaparte to Barras, dated Italy (sic). The future emperor complains about Josephine and her preferance for staying in Paris with her lovers rather than to obey the call of duty and come to his side. The general complains greatly about women, says that he needs calm and rest, and desires to obtain leave for two years.», vol. 2, p. 100 (vendredi 19 novembre 1852)(1)

This document would appear to be identical to the Princeton/Vilnius documents.

Letter
«Citoyen,
Je suis malade et j'ai besoin de repos, je demande ma démission, appuie-la si tu es mon ami. Deux ans dans une campagne près de Paris rétabliraient ma santé et redonneraient à mon caractère le popularité que la continuité du pouvoir ôte nécessairement… Je suis exclusif dans ma manière de sentir et d'agir et j'estime le coeur bien plus que la tête.
Bonaparte»
Postscript
«Je suis au désespoir ma femme ne vient pas, elle a quelque amant qui la retient à Paris, je maudis toutes les femmes mais embrasse de coeur mes bons amis.
Bonaparte » (2)

4: Document from the S.H.A.T., complete minute comprising the body of the letter on the Princeton/Vilnius documents
Shelfmark: S.H.A.T., C1712
Minute (copyist's hand)
Addressee: Barras; place: Passeriano; date: 4 Vendémiaire, An IV (crossed out and corrected to An VI), 25 September, 1797.
The text here is that of the body of the letter of the Princeton/Vilnius documents, without the postscript.
 
5 and 6: The body of the letter and postscript of the Princeton/Vilnius documents published seperately with facsimiles by the Baron de Coston
Le baron de Coston, Biographie des premières années de Napoléon Bonaparte, c'est-à-dire depuis sa naissance jusqu'à l'époque de son commandement en chef de l'armée d'Italie ; avec un appendice renfermant des documents ou inédits ou peu connus, postérieurs à cette époque, Paris; Valence: Marc Aurel frères, 1840, 2 vols.
 
Coston published the body of the letter of the Princeton/Vilnius documents on page 484 of volume 1, with a facing facsimile, J - here marked 5
Without addressee but in Coston's opinion it should be addressed to Barras (see Coston's note below); place: Passeriano; date: 4 Vendémiaire (Coston dates the document to An VI, 1797)
 
Coston also published the postscript of the Princeton/Vilnius documents on page 466 of volume 1, with a facing facsimile, C - here marked 6
Without addressee but in Coston's opinion it should be addressed to Barras; without place or date. In a footnote, Coston noted how the addressee could neither be Carnot nor Clarke. (3) 
 
7: Document once part of the Collection Emile Brouwet / Musée Napoléon, Digne (4) comprising a letter to Barras (text here below) and the postscript of the Princeton/Vilnius documents
Addressee: Barras; place: Milan; date: 23 Prairial, An IV (11 June, 1796)
A letter from Bonaparte to Barras (copyist's hand) followed by the postscript (autograph, hand of Napoleon) of the Princeton/Vilnius document. According to the catalogue of the sale of the Brouwet collection, Bonaparte wrote the following address on the envelope in his own hand: "Au citoyen Barras, membre du Directoire, exécutif, Paris" (To Citizen Barras, member of the Executive Directory, Paris). (5)
 
8 and 9: The body of the letter and the postscript of the Princeton/Vilnius documents published separately by Léonce de Brotonne, Lettres inédites de Napoléon Ier, 1898, nos. 9 et 13
 
No. 13, body of the letter in the Princeton/Vilnius documents
Addressee: Barras; place: Passeriano; date: 4 Vendémiaire, An V[I] (25 September, 1797) (6) - here marked 8.
Brotonne published only part of the text (up to "santé"). It is possible that Brotonne took the addressee here, Barras, from Coston, whom he cites (No. 13, note 1).
 
No. 9, postscript of the Princeton/Vilnius documents
Addressee: Carnot; without place or date - here marked 9.
It is possible that Brotonne took the addressee here, Carnot, from Coston, whom he cites (No. 13, note 1). In a note to No. 9, Brotonne dated this postscript to the "derniers jours de prairial an IV (mai 1796)" (the last days of Prairial, An IV (May 1796)).

Coston (1840) and Brotonne (1898)(7) published the body of the letter and postscript of the Princeton/Vilnius document separately (with facsimiles in Coston). The minute from the S.H.A.T. also shows us the body of the letter of the Princeton/Vilnius document on its own (without postscript). As for the addressee, despite the fact that the autograph (Princeton/Vilnius and the facsimile in Coston) does not have one, the minute from the S.H.A.T., Coston, and Brotonne are unanimous in their addressing of the body of the letter of the Princeton/Vilnius document to Barras and that the letter was dated 25 September, 1797. On the other hand, the other letter addressed to Barras (previously the Brouwet collection), shows us the Princeton/Vilnius postscript attached to a different letter body dated a year earlier. Is it possible that the Princeton and Vilnius documents (and that mentioned in the Memoirs of Viel-Castel) are compilations of documents of different dates, even though they are apparently originals and in the hand of Napoleon?
 
On taking a closer look at the chronology here and the history of the intertwining relations of Bonaparte, Barras and Josephine, however, clues appear.
 
To take the postscript first. The letter to Barras (previously Brouwet collection) sets the postscript in June 1796. This date is perfectly suitable. Bonaparte married Josephine in March 1796, but left almost immediately for Italy. In June, he was impatiently expecting her arrival. But she was dragging her heels in Paris. The postscript reveals to us an anxious husband residing in Milan, slipping a note to a close friend of his and his wife's, Barras (Carnot was never so close to Bonaparte), at the end of an official letter (but which Bonaparte clearly sent personally, as he wrote the address himself - see above note). The postscript could easily be dated 11 June, 1796 (Brotonne too proposed May/June 1796 for the postscript on its own). Josephine arrived in Milan on 10 July 1796.(8)
 
In this light, the postscript does not appear to belong to a letter from Passeriano dated 1797. But there is further, more powerful evidence that the postscript does not belong with the Passeriano letter of 1797 and that the Princeton/Vilnius documents are compilations.
 
We know that for the body of the letter of the Princeton/Vilnius documents, the date is September 1797. (9) In addition to the fact that the Bonaparte was in fact in Passeriano in September/October 1797, the First Italian Campaign was finishing and Bonaparte, tired, needed a rest, as the letter expresses. Naturally, he asked support for his request for leave. Chronology and content fit perfectly. As noted above, all sources (except the Princeton/Vilnius documents) give Barras as the addressee - who better could have supported his request? But what of the postscript ("I am in despair. My wife is not coming. She has a lover keeping her in Paris. Damn all women…")? In addition to the circumstantial evidence that it was written in Milan, we can also state categorically that it could not have been written as a postscript to the Passeriano letter of 1797, for the simple reason that at that time Josephine was at Bonaparte's side in the Villa Manin, Passeriano. Furthermore, Josephine wrote to Barras at the end of September 1797 telling him that Bonaparte loved her more than ever!
 
To recapitulate: the minute of the S.H.A.T., Coston, (and Brotonne partially) show a letter from Bonaparte, without postscript, to Barras, asking for support for his request for leave, 25 September, 1797. The letter (previously Brouwet collection) shows us a postscript by Bonaparte (again written to Barras) furious with women in general and Josephine in particular, 11 June, 1796. This postscript could not have been written in Passeriano in September 1797. As a result, the documents from Princeton and Vilnius (since they are autographs) are compilations, made before 1852 (the date of the memoirs of the Baron de Viel-Castel), but since they are facsimiles they are also useful for the reconstitution of the text of these two communications (being in the hand of Napoleon). There is however no doubt that they are forgeries. (10)

Subsequent to writing this article, yet another example of the body of the letter of the Princeton/Vilnius type surfaced. Whilst its existence does not change any of the conclusions above here, it does however alter the final description of the body of the letter in the Princeton and Vilnius documents. A facsimile of this text was published by Jacques Arnna in Pages de l'épopée imperiale impériale, Tours, 1952, pp. 86-88. The date (4 Vendémiaire [1797]), place (Passeriano) and writing (Bonaparte's) are identical (of course, since Princeton and Vilnius are as we know facsimiles). But there are two important differences. The Arnna letter is explicitly addressed to Barras (as opposed to an anonymous ‘Citoyen'), and secondly the body of the letter of the Princeton/Vilnius documents appears within the body of another, much longer letter. (11) This new document would appear to be the original from which the body of the letter  in the Princeton and Vilnius documents was snatched. Interestingly (and more logically, from what we know of Bonaparte) the Arnna letter sets Bonaparte's demand for support for his discharge within the context of his rivalry with Augereau, and it finishes the (we now see) incomplete last sentence in the Princeton/Vlinius documents. The Princeton/Vilnius/Viel-Castel documents are not only compilations of three facsimiles (the word ‘Citoyen' is taken from a third source), they are also incomplete.
 
Given that we now know that body of the letter of the Princeton/Vilnius documents is an excerpt, it is possible to approach the question why this compilation was made. It would not appear to be a facsimile cut from a book - if it were, what sense would there be in removing the addressee and replacing it with the banal 'citoyen'. The effort made to find the word 'citoyen' in Napoleon's hand and then to paste it here seems particularly suspicious. I would venture that it is the work of a forger trying to make his forgery harder to track down. Furthermore, now that we know the real context for the body of the letter, there would appear to be an agenda leading the forger to extract text from the Arnna letter and set it alongside the Milan postscript. by this outrageous unhistorical juxtaposition Napoleon is made to appear 'tired and emotional', worn out by campaigns, and worn down by his 'amours'. Clearly such a 'desperate' and personal letter is closer in style to Napoleon's love letters to Josephine and as a result could be thought to command a much higher price in a sale.