[26] Cf. Gourgaud, pp. 67, 68.
[27] Charras, vol. 1, p. 70.
[28] Ney’s letter to the Duke of Otranto; Jones, p. 385.
[29] Davout, p. 540.
[30] Foy’s History of the War in the Peninsula; vol. 1, pp. 110-112: Histoire de la Guerre de la Peninsule; pp. 161-164.
[31] Thiers, vol. xx, book lx, p. 37, n.: Grouchy Mém., vol. 4, p. 44, n. 2; id. in Le Mal de G., p. 18, n. 2.
[32] Soult told Sir W. Napier: “The Emperor seemed at times to be changed; there were moments when his genius and activity seemed as powerful and fresh as ever; at other moments he seemed apathetic. For example, he fought the battle of Waterloo without having himself examined the enemy’s position. He trusted to General Haxo’s report. In former days he would have examined and re-examined it in person.” Life of Sir W. F. W. Napier, vol. 1, p. 505.
[33] As do Chesney, p. 67, and Hooper, pp. 62, 161.
[34] Charras, vol. 1, pp. 65-68.
[35] Charras, vol. 1, p. 196, n., says that Jerome’s command was purely nominal, and that Guilleminot, his chief-of-staff, really commanded this division.