HISTORIC DOUBTS RELATIVE TO NAPOLEON ધાઈ BUONAPARTE. "Is not the same reason available in theology and in politics? Vindication of natural Society, by a late noble writer. SECOND EDITION. LONDON:-1821. LONG as the public attention has been occupied by the extraordinary personage from whose ambition we are supposed to have so narrowly escaped, the subject seems to have lost scarcely any thing of its interest. We are still occupied in recounting the exploits, discussing the character, enquiring into the present situation, and even conjecturing as to the future prospects of Napoleon Buonaparte. man. Nor is this at all to be wondered at, if we consider the very extraordinary nature of those exploits, and of that character; their greatness and extensive importance, as well as the unexampled strangeness of the events, and also, that strong additional stimulant, the mysterious uncertainty that hangs over the character of the If it be doubtful whether any history (exclusive of such as is avowedly fabulous) ever attributed to its hero such a series of wonderful achievements compressed into so small a space of time, it is certain that to no one were ever assigned so many dissimilar characters. It is true indeed that party prejudices have drawn a favorable and an unfavorable portrait of almost every eminent man; but amidst all the diversities of coloring, something of the same general outline is always distinguishable; and even the vir tues in the one description bear some resemblance to the vices of another; rashness, for instance, will be called courage, or courage, rashness; heroic firmuess, and obstinate pride, will correspond in the two opposite descriptions; aud in some leading features, both will agree: neither the friends nor the enemies of Philip of Macedon or of Julius Cæsar ever questioned their COURAGE, or their MILITARY SKILL. With Buonaparte however it has been otherwise. This obscure Corsican adventurer, a man, according to some, of extraordinary talents and courage, according to others, of very moderate abilities, and a rank coward, advanced rapidly in the French army, obtained a high command, gained a series of important victories, and, elated by success, embarked in an expedition against Egypt, which was planned and conducted, according to some, with the most consummate skill, according to others, with the utmost wildness and folly: he was unsuccessful however; and leaving the army of Egypt in a very distressed situation, he returned to France, and found the nation, or at least the army, so favorably disposed towards him, that he was enabled, with the utmost ease, to overthrow the existing government, and obtain for himself the supreme power; at first under the modest appellation of Consul, but afterwards with the more sounding title of Emperor. While in possession of this power, he overthrew the most powerful coalitions of the other European states against him, and though driven from the sea by the British fleets, overran nearly the whole continent, triumphant: finishing a war, not unfrequently in a single campaign, he entered the capitals of most of the hostile potentates, deposed and created kings at his pleasure, and appeared the virtual sovereign of the chief part of the continent, from the frontiers of Spain to those of Russia. Even those countries we find him invading with prodigious armies, defeating their forces, penetrating to their capitals, and threatening their total subjugation but at Moscow his progress is stopped: a winter of unusual severity, co-operating with the efforts of the Russians, totally destroys his enormous host; and the German sovereigns throw off the yoke, and combine to oppose him. He raises another vast army, which is also ruined at Leipsic and again another, with which, like a second Antæus, he for some time maintains himself in France, but is finally defeated, deposed, and banished to the island of Elba, of which the sovereignty is conferred on him: thence he returns, in about nine months, at the head of six hundred inen, to attempt the deposition of King Lewis, who had been peaceably recalled; the French nation declare in his favor, and he is reinstated without a struggle. He raises another great army to oppose the allied powers, which is totally defeated at Waterloo: he is a second time deposed, surrenders to the British, and is placed in confine ment at the island of St. Helena. Such is the outline of the eventful history presented to us; in the detail of which, however, there is almost every conceivable variety of statement; while the motives and conduct of the chief actor are involved in still greater doubt, and the subject of still more eager controversy. In the midst of these controversies, the preliminary question, concerning the existence of this extraordinary personage, seems never to have occurred to any one as a matter of doubt; and to show even the smallest hesitation in admitting it, would probably be regarded as an excess of scepticism; on the ground that this point has always been taken for granted by the disputants on all sides, being indeed implied by the very nature of their disputes, But is it in fact found that undisputed points are always such as have been the most carefully examined as to the evidence on which they rest? that facts or principles which are taken for granted, without controversy, as the common basis of opposite opinions, are always themselves established on sufficient grounds? On the contrary, is not any such fundamental point, from the very circumstance of its being taken for granted at once, and the attention drawn off to some other question, likely to be admitted on insufficient evidence, and the flaws in that evidence overlooked? Experience will teach us that such instances often occur: witness the well-known anecdote of the Royal Society; to whom King Charles II. proposed as a question, whence it is that a vessel of water receives no addition of weight from a live fish being put into it, though it does, if the fish be dead. Various solutions of great ingenuity were proposed, discussed, objected to, and defended; nor was it till they had been long bewildered in the enquiry that it occurred to them to try the experiment; by which they at once ascertained, that the phenomenon which they were striving to account for-which was the acknowleged basis, and substratum, as it were, of their debates-had no existence but in the invention of the witty monarch. Another instance of the same kind is so very remarkable that I cannot forbear mentioning it. It was objected to the system of Copernicus when first brought forward, that if the earth turned on its axis as he represented, a stone dropped from the summit of a tower would not fall at the foot of it, but at a great distance to the west; in the same manner as a stone dropped from the masthead of a ship in full sail, does not fall at the foot of the mast, but towards the stern: to this it was answered, that a stone being a part of the earth, obeys the same laws, and moves with it, whereas it is no part of the ship, of which consequently its motion is independent this solution was admitted by some, but opposed by others, and the controversy went on with spirit; nor was it till one hundred years after the death of Copernicus that, the experi ment being tried, it was ascertained that the stone thus dropped from the head of the mast, does fall at the foot of it!' Let it be observed that I am not now impugning any one particular point, but merely showing generally, that what is unquestioned is not necessarily unquestionable; since men will often, at the very moment when they are accurately sifting the evidence of some disputed point, admit hastily, and on the most insufficient grounds, what they have been accustomed to see taken for granted. The celebrated Hume' has pointed out also the readiness with which men believe, on very slight evidence, any story that pleases their imagination by its admirable and marvellous character. Such hasty credulity however, as he well remarks, is utterly unworthy of a philosophical mind, which should rather suspend its judgment the more, in proportion to the strangeness of the account; and yield to none but the most decisive and unimpeachable proofs. Let it then be allowed us, as is surely reasonable, just to enquire, with respect to the extraordinary story I have been speaking of, on what evidence we believe it. We shall be told that it is notorious; i. e. in plain English, it is very much talked about: but as the generality of those who talk about Buonaparte do not even pretend to speak from their own authority, but merely to repeat what they have casually heard, we cannot reckon them as in any degree witnesses, but must allow ninety-nine hundredths of what we are told to be mere hearsay, which would not be at all the more worthy of credit even if it were repeated by ten times as many more. As for those who profess to have personally known Napoleon Buonaparte, and to have themselves witnessed his transactions, I write not for them: if any such there be, who are inwardly conscious of the truth of all they relate, I have nothing to say to them, but to beg that they will be tolerant and charitable towards their neighbors, who have not the same means of ascertaining the truth, and who may well be excused for remaining doubtful about such extraordinary events, till most unanswerable proofs shall be adduced. Let us however endeavor to trace up some of this hearsay evidence as far towards its source as we are able: most persons · Οὕτως ἀταλαίπωρος τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ζήτησις τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἕτοιμα μᾶλλον TрÉTOVтal. Thucyd. b. i. c. 20. With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travellers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners." Hume's Essay on Miracles, p. 179. 12mo.; p. 185. 8vo. 1767; p. 117. 8vo. 1817. N. B. In order to give every possible facility of reference, three editions of Hume's Essays have been generally employed; a 12mo. London, 1756. and two 8vo. editions. would refer to the newspapers as the authority from which their knowlege on the subject was derived; so that, generally speaking, we may say, it is on the testimony of the newspapers that men believe in the existence and exploits of Napoleon Buonaparte. It is rather a remarkable circumstance, that it is common to hear Englishmen speak of the impudent fabrications of foreign newspapers, and express wonder that any one can be found to credit them; while they conceive that in this favored land the liberty of the press is a sufficient security for veracity: it is true they often speak contemptuously of such "newspaper stories" as last but a short time; indeed they continually see them contradicted within a day or two in the same paper, or their falsity detected by some journal of an opposite party; but still whatever is long adhered to and often repeated, especially if it also appear in several different papers, (and this, though they notoriously copy from one another,) is almost sure to be generally believed. Whence this high respect which is practically paid to newspaper authority? Do men think that because a witness has been perpetually detected in falsehood, he may therefore be the more safely believed whenever he is not detected? or does adherence to a story, and frequent repetition of it, render it the more credible? On the contrary, is it not a common remark in other cases, that a liar will generally stand to and reiterate what he has once said, merely because he has said it ? Let us if possible divest ourselves of this superstitious veneration for every thing that appears "in print," and examine a little more systematically the evidence which is adduced. I suppose it will not be denied, that the three following are among the most important points to be ascertained, in deciding on the credibility of witnesses; first, whether they have the means of gaining correct information; secondly, whether they have any interest in concealing truth, or propagating falsehood; and, thirdly, whether they agree in their testimony. Let us examine the present witnesses on all these points. First, what means have the editors of newspapers for gaining correct information? We know not, except from their own statements; besides what is copied from other journals, foreign or British, (which is usually more than three-fourths of the news published,') they profess to refer to the authority of certain pri "Suppose a fact to be transmitted through twenty persons; the first communicating it to the second, the second to the third, &c. and let the probability of each testimony be expressed by nine-tenths, (that is, suppose that of ten reports made by each witness, nine only are true,) then, at every time the story passes from one witness to another, the evidence is reduced to nine-tenths of what it was before. Thus after it has passed through the |