Virginia', which he had read in his boyhood. I remember that he one day
tried to read 'Les etudes de la Nature', but at the expiration of a
quarter of an hour he threw down the book, exclaiming, "How can any one
read such silly stuffy. It is insipid and vapid; there is nothing in it.
These are the dreams of a visionary! What is nature? The thing is vague
and unmeaning. Men and passions are the subjects to write about--there
is something there for study. These fellows are good for nothing under
any government. I will, however, give them pensions, because I ought to
do so, as Head of the State. They occupy and amuse the idle. I will
make Lagrange a Senator--he has a head."

Although Bonaparte spoke so disdainfully of literary men it must not be
taken for granted that he treated them ill. On the contrary, all those
who visited at Malmaison were the objects of his attention, and even
flattery. M. Lemercier was one of those who came most frequently, and
whom Bonaparte received with the greatest pleasure. Bonaparte treated
M. Lemercier with great kindness; but he did not like him. His character
as a literary man and poet, joined to a polished frankness, and a mild
but inflexible spirit of republicanism, amply sufficed to explain
Bonaparte's dislike. He feared M. Lemercier and his pen; and, as
happened more than once, he played the part of a parasite by flattering
the writer. M. Lemercier was the only man I knew who refused the cross
of the Legion of Honour.

Bonaparte's general dislike of literary men was less the result of
prejudice than circumstances. In order to appreciate or even to read
literary works time is requisite, and time was so precious to him that he
would have wished, as one may say, to shorten a straight line. He liked
only those writers who directed their attention to positive and precise
things, which excluded all thoughts of government and censures on
administration. He looked with a jealous eye on political economists and
lawyers; in short, as all persons who in any way whatever meddled with
legislation and moral improvements. His hatred of discussions on those
subjects was strongly displayed on the occasion of the classification of
the Institute. Whilst he permitted the reassembling of a literary class,
to the number of forty, as formerly, he suppressed the class of moral and
political science. Such was his predilection for things of immediate and
certain utility that even in the sciences he favoured onl