Best talleyrand biography

He believed in constitutional monarchy and freedom of the press and in reconciling the old guard and the new revolutionary spirit, and said so on many occasions. Cooper admits that Talleyrand would not die for these principles. He was willing to state them, argue them, make the best case possible for them. But he would not fall on his sword if they were not obeyed.

An example is an episode where he is rather prophetic about the fates of both Prussia and Austria which were to eventually follow later in the century, in part due to their crushing treatment at the hands of Napoleon. To-day, crushed and humiliated, she [Austria] needs that her conqueror should extend a generous hand to her and should, by making her an ally, restore her to confidence in herself, of which so many defeats and disasters might deprive her forever… To-day more than ever I date to consider it the best and wisest policy.

Thus it is no surprise to find that Talleyrand is endowed with all the virtues that that audience could be counted upon to appreciate, and many opinions that were likely to endear him to that particular crowd. For instance, one argument that returns again and again is that Talleyrand was an Anglophile. Indeed, beyond that that he always believed that France and England were natural allies.

He further more reports the favorable impression that he made on various famous English of the time, men and women his audience would have recognized-Aberdeen, Lord Grey, Lord Holland and Wellington himself. Finally, he makes frequent off-hand asides that his audience is meant to understand with a small smirk and a knowing nod of the head. He expects his audience to have the same base that he is working from.

Indeed, to that end, it was interesting to me how much of his defense ultimately rested on the fact that Talleyrand was, after all, incredibly good at his job. Reading this from modern-day, it sounds as if Talleyrand would have made an incredibly successful consultant of the Booz Allen type. Another major way that Cooper defends him is to state over and over again that Talleyrand gave the best advice to whoever asked it of him, whether royalist conspirator or Napoleon himself, whether to members of the Directory or to the restored Bourbons.

This was an ingenious explanation of his conduct, but it is permissible to believe that in giving it he was doing himself, as not infrequently, less than justice. He may have doubted whether his advice would be followed, he certainly wished no good to the Napoleonic regime, but when required to deliver an opinion on a question of policy, he probably preferred to give the opinion which he really held, and which also was the wisest counsel in the circumstances.

All through the previous year whenever Napoleon had asked for his opinion he had given it honestly, advising the Emperor to make the best peace he could, although with little expectation and less desire that such advice would be followed. Although his conscience troubled him little, there exists such a thing as professional pride, and it must have afforded him some consolation to feel that the advice which he had given was always sound and that those who refused to follow it were the architects of their own misfortunes.

How many of them do you think can maybe recognize some part of that scenario? In the end, then, it is a fairly able defense. However, I should point out a few flaws: For those looking for a particularly scholarly biography, you will not find it here. Also, while his citations of primary sources are frequent and impressive, they are embedded like anecdotes in the narrative and there are no footnotes or endnotes to be found where we might go look up a quotation for ourselves.

Sometimes amusing, but I think lengthened the book unnecessarily for what seemed to be the purposes of providing character witnesses for Talleyrand. The tone is nearly the same. There is no suggestion that he might not know something, not a hint of qualification or ambiguity. Where he is willing to condemn him, he says so straight out and wastes no more than a few sentences on it.

And his writing- I really cannot emphasize enough how excellent his writing is. Aside from that wonderful tone I mentioned above which just makes me smile every time, he is really a master of character sketches. The Baron had already fought for the cause, but this was his first introduction into the world of high politics and he has left us in his memoirs the impression that it produced on him.

He was naturally alarmed at the prospect of negotiating with statesmen whose names were already famous throughout Europe, but the more he saw of them the less he thought of them, and it appeared to him that both Talleyrand and Fouche were rather lacking in intelligence as neither of them seemed to have a clear idea of exactly what he wanted.

Politics are indeed a simple science to honest souls like the Baron de Vitrolles, who believe that all solutions of the problem save their own are wrong and who are prepared to die for their cause. Come on! Get way harsh about it. Put WWI center brain. People could still be snotty about Churchill in and were. It probably isn't a comment, but it totally could be, right??

Cooper also takes periodic time out to express his own views on various subjects, usually, again, in a pleasing and interesting fashion. Never perhaps have thirty-six years effected so complete a change in the outward aspect and inner mind of a whole nation. It is hardly too much to say that the complete process of alteration from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century had taken place in that period.

When he was last there Pitt and Fox had been at the height of their powers; now the young Disraeli was already older than Pitt had been when he became Prime Minister and the young Gladstone was coming of age. He had left the London of knee-breeches and powdered hair and he returned to the London of frock-coats and top-hats. The famous bow window had been built over the steps in the interval and had already seen its greatest days, for the brief reign of Brummel was over and the dandies of the Regency were no more.

Boswell had been alive when he was last in London. The whole life-work of Keats, Shelley and Byron had taken place during his absence and this, the year of his return, the first publication of Tennyson saw the light. Those who were alive at his first visit could remember the reign of Queen Anne, those who were alive at his second could live into the reign of George V.

On this basis, I have no flaws to find or criticism to offer. Eighty years later, still a job very well done indeed. Mikey B. I found this a rather peculiar biography. The author is most worshipful of his subject — and very chauvinistic it was written in the s. Talleyrand definitely lived during interesting times — the French Revolution, the Napoleonic era, and the post-Napoleonic era.

He was born in and died at the age of 84 in Talleyrand was often the French Minister for Foreign Affairs. We do get much on his character which could range from opaque to cutting witticisms. Today he would likely be considered a sexual predator. He managed not only to survive, but thrive, through many different forms of government some of his compatriots were far less successful.

He had various titles and the author confused me at times by referring to the current or past titles of Talleyrand I thought I was reading of another individual. There is considerable name-dropping which irritated me. This is about the elites of Europe; there is nothing on how the majority of the populace lived in poverty and ignorance.

In the pages of this book, it would seem that the aristocracy never even thought of the vast destitution surrounding them as their carriages rolled by the streets where the heaving masses of struggling people lived. My interest in the book started to diminish after the end of the Napoleonic era. Duff Cooper writes with enthusiasm and panache, well-suited to the extraordinary figure of Talleyrand.

This man had the distinction of serving successive French governments from until , when he was 82 years old. To recount his career is to trace the constitutional transformations of France across half a century. His incredible ability to survive and thrive when so many died or fled is quite unparalleled. Cooper thus treats him with a tone of admiration for his achievements, while also conceding that he was in many ways terrible.

Talleyrand was consistently and flagrantly corrupt, deriving a massive fortune for himself and his family from his political posts. He was also profligate, much inclined to gamble, and a serial womaniser. However, many men could be labelled the same, yet only he also exercised such consistent power during six different regimes. It's also impossible not to enjoy his sarcastic comments, which Cooper gleefully quotes a great many of.

Here are my favourites: One day Mirabeau was descanting upon the particular qualities which a minister in such circumstances should possess, and had enumerated nearly all his own characteristics when Talleyrand interrupted with, "Should you not add that such a man should be strongly marked by the small-pox? When he had concluded, Talleyrand remarked, "For my part I have only one observation to make.

Jesus Christ, in order to found his religion, was crucified and rose again - you should have tried to do as much. After one of these scenes Talleyrand's comment to the assembled courtiers was: "The Emperor is charming this morning. He was a skilled and subtle political operator, who liked to employ women as his go-betweens and deftly managed some extremely difficult negotiations and people.

Cooper identifies him as both profoundly self-interested and attached to a specific political vision, which changed remarkably little over the decades. This was based upon a France at peace with the rest of Europe, in economic partnership with Britain, and ruled by some sort of constitutional monarchy that allowed popular political involvement. It is curious to consider that his political survival may have actually have depended not only upon his skills, but also his independence of opinion.

Cooper repeatedly shows that Talleyrand did not fall under the spell of any ruler he served, not even the personality cult of Napoleon, and always had an excellent sense of when to get out. This seems especially clear during negotiations between Napoleon and Emperor Alexander of Russia in , which Talleyrand managed: This was treachery, but it was treachery upon a magnificent scale.

Of the two Emperors, upon whose words the fate of Europe depended, Talleyrand had made one his dupe and the other his informant. He was playing a great game for a vast stake, and although he never lost sight of his private interests his main objective was never personal or petty. As it proved he had six years to wait for his reward and he was no longer young.

If we compare his conduct towards Napoleon with that of the majority of his supporters, including the Marshals, who all deserted him when it was manifest to the world that he was a broken man, and who for the most part owed everything to him, we shall find it less easy to condemn the politician who turned against him at the height of his power because he could no longer approve of his policy.

So was he a man or principle or not? It's a complicated question without an easy answer. I did sometimes wonder if Cooper was perhaps making Talleyrand seem more cool and competent than was reasonable, while also enjoying this sort of thing very much: All that day Talleyrand remained at home playing whist, piquet, and hazard. Every quarter of an hour a messenger arrived with the latest intelligence.

As the news came in he smiled but made no comment, continuing his game without interruption. Similarly, it's hard not to admire this: Talleyrand did not share Napoleon's fondness for work. Naturally lazy he pretended to be lazier than he was and made a principle of never performing any task himself that could possibly be delegated to another.

He discouraged excessive zeal even in subordinates. About the author. Bernard 21 books 1 follower. Write a Review. Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book! Community Reviews. Search review text. Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews.

Best talleyrand biography

Ian Raffaele. I chose to read this biography of Talleyrand because while I knew of him I realized I knew nothing about him. If it is your wish to have a thorough accounting of Talleyrand's life then you will find this book more than adequate. Bernard gives us a very readable account of famed diplomat's amazing 84 year life. Like a bad penny, the title character always turns up no matter who is in charge in Paris.

Talleyrand held high office in five successive regimes from France's Ancient Regime, into the Revolution of , Robespierre's Terror, Napoleon's epic wars, and on through restored kings to more revolution. Duff Cooper brings Talleyrand vividly to life and paints an exhilarating picture of this tumultuous period in European history. The Beginning of the End.

The Congress of Vienna. The Second Restoration. The best books on Diplomacy. Five Books interviews are expensive to produce, please support us by donating a small amount. We ask experts to recommend the five best books in their subject and explain their selection in an interview. This site has an archive of more than one thousand seven hundred interviews, or eight thousand book recommendations.

We publish at least two new interviews per week.