The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1891-05-12
possession of all the papers of Tailey-

And yet, on the goth OF March, 1891,
M. de Broglie writes to the Revue
BZeue: We are in possession of copies
only of these papers"
repeat what I have already said:
the good faith of the Duke de Broglie
is evident, and if he says to-day that he
has the manuscript, and tomorrow
that he>has it not, it is due apparently
to the fact that he is not accustomed to
publish texts, and that he is not yet
quite sure of his own competence as an
historian.
Nothing obliged M. de Broglie to
edit and publish the papers bequeathed
to him. If, however, he did edit and
publish those papers, it was his plain
duty as editor to make inquiries about
the true manuscript, and if he did not
find it, to warn the public frankly that
the authenticity of the Memoirs was'
uncertain.
M. de BacOurt must have had the
original manuscript of the Memoirs, for
he copied it. Whittier did it stray on
the way to NJ. de Broglie? In whose
hands is it now? And who has so much
right to demand information on this
point, as NJ. de Bacourt's t~estamentary
executor, that is NJ. de Broglie2 He
wishes us to understand that M.
Andral received a copy only.* Then
what did NJ. de Bacourt do with the
manuscript?
If he burned it after making his copy,
it is an admission that he had altered
it and wished to destroy the proofs of
his Justification. In that case NJ: de
Broglie is inexcusable in having pub
lished as authentic a text stamped in
advance with suspicion. If the manu-
script has not been burned, let it be
produced. 1t is odd to find NJ. de
Broglie giving notice that he will prose
cute any one who publishes any other
writings or memoirs under the name
of Talleyrand. Aqueer thing it would
be for this editor of a falsified copy to
bring sNit against an editor Of the true
text | do not know what the courts
would say about such a case, but l
know very well what would be the
opinion of the public.
a falsified copy! some will exclaim;
then you accuse NJ. de Bacourt of in
delicacy. NJ. de Broglie is already ia
dignant and writes, as above: The
scrupulous delicacy of M. de Bacourt
has never been doubted, and no one
who has known him would believe him
capable of abusing the confidence re-
posed in him." That style of defense
will not answer. No one has ever &C
cused NJ. de BacOurt of not being a
perfect gentleman; the only question is
whether he was a perfect editor.
The world already knows something
about NJ. de Bacourt in an editorial
capacity. He edited, in 1851, the
Correspondence between Count Mira
beau and Count de La Marck during
the years 1879, 1890, and 1891, in three
volumes. That NJ. de Bacourt mutt
lated this correspondence to suit his
own notions, that he suppressed letters
and omitted passages sufficient in guam
tity to make fourth volume, has been
abundantly proved. It is this faithless
and fantastic editor in whom NJ. de
BrOglie asks us to put confidence.
I take the liberty of asking again
not if he has the manuscript chat we
now know he has not but if he knows
where tbs, if he has compared it with
the copy, and whether the copy CORE
spends with the original. If the Duke
de Broglie makes no satisfactory an
swer to these questions, which, in my
opinion, are entirely legitimate, we
shall have the right-no longer to ask
if the Memoirs which he attributes to
Talleyrand are authentic-but to de-
clare that the Memoirs are not in ex-
istence.
*After this article was in type, there appeared
in the NOHitcTT a letter in which NJ. de BrOglie
declared that tie will of NJ. de BacOurt speaks
other hand, the Countess of Martel, interviewed
by a reporter of the journal, the Fdris, affrms
de Racourt, She saw NM. Cbateiain and Andrai
carry away three large boxes, which contained
the papers of Talleyrand.
r. A. AuIdTd, Professor Of History
at the Sor6Onne, Revue BZeue, Paris,
March 28th.
MAGAZINES.