Art experts in the field of high political comedy find a source of 
the purest pleasure in the French Moniteur of November 14. As in 
the ancient classical drama, Fate invisibly, irresistibly enmeshes the 
heroes—Fate in the form of a thousand million-franc deficit. As 
in ancient drama, the dialogue is only between two persons, 
Oedipus-Bonaparte and Teiresias-Fould. The tragedy turns into 
comedy, however, since Teiresias says only what Oedipus has 
whispered to him in advance.’ 

One of the most characteristic tricks of Bonapartist comedy is to 
put its old, worn dramatis personae on stage over and over again as 
brand-new heroes. Billault comes on in place of Persigny, and 
then Persigny comes on in place of Billault! And likewise in the 
Decembrist press!’ Grandguillot, Cassagnac, Limayrac are tossed 
to and fro between the Constitutionnel, the Pays and the Patrie. 
Monsieur Véron, the “Bourgeois de Paris”,° is replaced by Cesena 
as director of the Constitutionnel, Cesena by Cucheval, Cucheval by 
Cassagnac, Cassagnac by Renée, Renée by Grandguillot, and after 
six years Véron comes on again in his old spot—as a brand-new 
hero. 

Likewise under the constitutional system Thiers became new as 
soon as Guizot was worn out, and Molé new as soon as Thiers was 
worn out, and then the round was repeated. However, these 

different men represented different parties and tendencies. If 
they pushed one another out, in order to follow one another, and 
followed one another in order to push one another out again, 
then their toing and froing only showed the oscillations in the 
balance of the parties that in general formed the pays légal* under 
Louis Philippe. But Billault or Persigny, Walewski or Thouvenel, 
Laroquette or Fould, Grandguillot or Limayrac? It is what the 
English call “a distinction without a difference”. They all 
represent the same thing—the coup d’état. They do not represent 
different interests and parties among the people. They only 
represent different facial features of the Emperor. They are only 
different masks, behind which the same head is hidden. 

The Times, whose weak point is comparisons, compares Louis 
Bonaparte with Louis XVI and Fould with Turgot.‘ Fould and 
Turgot! It is like trying to compare M. Vaillant with Carnot, 
because both of them were Ministers of War. Turgot was the head 
of the new economic school of the eighteenth century, the 
Physiocratic School.? He was one of the intellectual heroes who 
overthrew the old regime, while Louis XVI was the incarnation of 
that old regime. But who is Fould? Fould, a member of the 
dynastic opposition’? under Louis Philippe, was always passed 
over on principle despite the most obtrusive solicitation, whenever 
the dynastic opposition was in a position to nominate a Finance 
Minister. Fould was held to be a “financier dangereux”, a reputation 
he had earned owing to his various unlucky financial operations. 
He needed only to defend a proposal, and the Chambers rejected 
it. Then came the provisional government. It had hardly been 
proclaimed, when Fould rushed to Ledru-Rollin, offered his 
services as Finance Minister and—proposed national bankruptcy. 
The courtship was unsuccessful, and the rejected suitor got his 
revenge by writing the pamphlet, Pas d’assignats! Finally Fould 
recognised in Louis Bonaparte the man who was foolhardy 
enough to hand the French treasury over to Mr. Fould. 

Fould was closely involved in the manoeuvres that ensured the 
“nephew’s” election to the presidency on December 10, 1848. 
Fould was a very active friend and made the financial preparations 
for the coup d’état. December 2, 1851 was not only the victory of 

No. 24091, November 15, 1861, leading article.— Ed. 

Louis Bonaparte but also the victory of Fould. Fould became 
all-powerful. Fould became Minister of State. Fould could raise 
even his menus plaisirs* to the level of affairs of state. He seized 
hold of the dictatorship of the theatre along with the dictatorship 
of finances. Like other notorious men of haute finance,” Fould 
shared a passion for the dollar with a passion for the heroines of 
the wings. Fould became a sultan of the wings. Fould, with 
Péreire, is the inventor of imperialist finance. He is the direct 
cause of nine-tenths of the current deficit. Finally, in 1860, the 
great Fould withdrew into private life, to reappear in 1861 as “a 
new man” (“a brand new man”)* in the imperialist finance 
comedy. Fould appears again as Turgot, Fould as Marquis Posa! 
Applaudite, amici!!!