When Napoleon was informed of what had passed he demanded a sight of the address, which was presented to him by M. Daru.  After having perused it he exclaimed; “Had this discourse been delivered I would have shut the gates of the Institute, and thrown M. de Chateaubriand into a dungeon for life.”  The storm long raged; at length means of conciliation were tried.  The Emperor required M. de Chateaubriand to prepare another discourse, which the latter refused to do, in spite of every menace.  Madame Gay applied to Madame Regnault de St. Jean d’Angely, who interested her husband in favour of the author of the Genie du Christianisme.  M. de Montalivet and Savary also acted on this occasion in the most praiseworthy manner, and succeeded in appeasing the first transports of the Emperor’s rage.  But the name of Chateaubriand constantly called to mind the circumstances which had occasioned him to give in his resignation; and, besides, Napoleon had another complaint against him.  He had published in the ‘Merceure’ an article on a work of M. Alexandre de Laborde.  In that article, which was eagerly read in Paris, and which caused the suppression of the ‘Merceure’, occurred the famous phrase which has been since so often repeated:  “In vain a Nero triumphs:  Tacitus is already born in his Empire.”  This quotation leads me to repeat an observation, which, I believe, I have already made, viz. that it is a manifest misconception to compare Bonaparte to Nero.  Napoleon’s ambition might blind his vision to political crimes, but in private life no man could evince less disposition to cruelty or bloodshed.  A proof that he bore little resemblance to Nero is that his anger against the author of the article in question vented itself in mere words.  “What!” exclaimed he, “does Chateaubriand think I am a fool, and that I do not know what he means?  If he goes on this way I will have him sabred on the steps of the Tuileries.”  This language is quite characteristic of Bonaparte, but it was uttered in the first ebullition of his wrath.  Napoleon merely threatened, but Nero would have made good his threat; and in such a case there is surely some difference between words and deeds.

The discourse of M. de Chateaubriand revived Napoleon’s former enmity against him; he received an order to quit Paris:  M. Daru returned to him the manuscript of his discourse, which had been read by Bonaparte, who cancelled some passages with a pencil.  We can be sure that the phrase about liberty was not one of those spared by the Imperial pencil.  However that may be, written copies were circulated with text altered and abbreviated; and I have even been told that a printed edition appeared, but I have never seen any copies; and as I do not find the discourse in the works of M. de Chateaubriand I have reason to believe that the author has not yet wished to publish it.

Such were the principal circumstances attending the nomination of Chateaubriand to the Institute.  I shall not relate some others which occurred on a previous occasion, viz. on the election of an old and worthy visitor at Malmaison, M. Lemercier, and which will serve to show one of those strange inconsistencies so frequent in the character of Napoleon.