Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte Part 2

But whatever may be believed by the French relative to the recent occurrences, in their own country, and whatever may be the real character of these occurrences, of this at least we are well a.s.sured, that there have been numerous b.l.o.o.d.y wars with France under the dominion of the _Bourbons_: and we are now told that France is governed by a Bourbon king, of the name of Lewis, who professes to be in the twenty-third year of his reign. Let every one conjecture for himself. I am far from pretending to decide who may have been the governor or governors of the French nation, and the leaders of their armies, for several years past. Certain it is, that when men are indulging their inclination for the marvellous, they always show a strong propensity to acc.u.mulate upon _one_ individual (real or imaginary) the exploits of many; besides multiplying and exaggerating these exploits a thousandfold. Thus, the expounders of the ancient mythology tell us there were several persons of the name of Hercules, (either originally bearing that appellation, or having it applied to them as an honour,) whose collective feats, after being dressed up in a sufficiently marvellous garb, were attributed to a single hero. Is it not just possible, that during the rage for words of Greek derivation, the t.i.tle of "Napoleon," (?ap?????,) which signifies "Lion of the forest," may have been conferred by the popular voice on more than one favorite general, distinguished for irresistible valour? Is it not also possible that "BUONA PARTE" may have been originally a sort of cant term applied to the "good (i.e., the bravest or most patriotic) part" of the French army, collectively; and have been afterwards mistaken for the proper name of an individual?[23] I do not profess to support this conjecture; but it is certain that such mistakes may and do occur. Some critics have supposed that the Athenians imagined ANASTASIS ("Resurrection") to be a new G.o.ddess, in whose cause Paul was preaching. Would it have been thought anything incredible if we had been told that the ancient Persians, who had no idea of any but a monarchical government, had supposed Aristocratia to be a queen of Sparta? But we need not confine ourselves to hypothetical cases; it is positively stated that the Hindoos at this day believe "the honourable East India Company" to be a venerable old lady of high dignity, residing in this country. The Germans, again, of the present day derive their name from a similar mistake: the first tribe of them who invaded Gaul[24] a.s.sumed the honourable t.i.tle of "_Ger-man_" which signifies "warriors," (the words "war" and "guerre,"

as well as "man," which remains in our language unaltered, are evidently derived from the Teutonic,) and the Gauls applied this as a _name_ to the whole _race_.

However, I merely throw out these conjectures without by any means contending that more plausible ones might not be suggested. But whatever supposition we adopt, or whether we adopt any, the objections to the commonly received accounts will remain in their full force, and imperiously demand the attention of the candid sceptic.

I call upon those, therefore, who profess themselves advocates of free inquiry-who disdain to be carried along with the stream of popular opinion, and who will listen to no testimony that runs counter to experience,-to follow up their own principles fairly and consistently. Let the same mode of argument be adopted in all cases alike; and then it can no longer be attributed to hostile prejudice, but to enlarged and philosophical views. If they have already rejected some histories, on the ground of their being strange and marvellous,-of their relating facts, unprecedented, and at variance with the established course of nature,-let them not give credit to another history which lies open to the very same objections,-the extraordinary and romantic tale we have been just considering. If they have discredited the testimony of witnesses, who are _said_ at least to have been disinterested, and to have braved persecutions and death in support of their a.s.sertions,-can these philosophers consistently listen to and believe the testimony of those who avowedly _get money_ by the tales they publish, and who do not even pretend that they incur any serious risk in case of being detected in a falsehood? If, in other cases, they have refused to listen to an account which has pa.s.sed through many intermediate hands before it reaches them, and which is defended by those who have an interest in maintaining it; let them consider through how many, and what very suspicious hands, _this_ story has arrived to them, without the possibility, as I have shown, of tracing it back to any decidedly authentic source, after all;-to any better authority, according to their own showing, than that of an _unnamed_ and unknown foreign correspondent;-and likewise how strong an interest, in every way, those who have hitherto imposed on them, have in keeping up the imposture. Let them, in short, show themselves as ready to detect the cheats, and despise the fables of politicians as of priests.

But if they are still wedded to the popular belief in this point, let them be consistent enough to admit the same evidence in _other_ cases which they yield to in _this_. If, after all that has been said, they cannot bring themselves to doubt of the existence of Napoleon Buonaparte, they must at least acknowledge that they do not apply to that question the same plan of reasoning which they have made use of in others; and they are consequently bound in reason and in honesty to renounce it altogether.

FOOTNOTES:

[3] "A report is spread, (says Voltaire in one of his works,) that there is, in some country or other, a giant as big as a mountain; and men presently fall to hot disputing concerning the precise length of his nose, the breadth of his thumb, and other particulars, and anathematize each other for heterodoxy of belief concerning them. In the midst of all, if some bold sceptic ventures to hint a doubt as to the existence of this giant, all are ready to join against him, and tear him to pieces." This looks almost like a prophetic allegory relating to the gigantic Napoleon.

[4] ??t?? ?ta?a?p???? t??? p?????? ? ??t?s?? t?? ????e?a?, ?a? ?p? t?

?t??a ????? t??p??ta?. Thucyd. b.i.c. 20.

[5] "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.

[6] "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 pa.s.ses from one witness to another, the evidence is reduced to nine-tenths of what it was before.

Thus, after it has pa.s.sed through the whole twenty, the evidence will be found to be less than one-eighth."-LA PLACE, _Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilites_.

That is, the chances for the fact thus attested being true, will be, according to this distinguished calculator, less than one in eight.

Very few of the common newspaper-stories, however, relating to foreign countries, could be traced, if the matter were carefully investigated, up to an actual eye-witness, even through twenty intermediate witnesses; and many of the steps of our ladder, would, I fear, prove but rotten; few of the reporters would deserve to have _one in ten_ fixed as the proportion of their false accounts.

[7] "I did not mention the difficulty of detecting a falsehood in any private or even public history, at the time and place where it is said to happen; much more where the scene is removed to ever so small a distance.... But the matter never comes to any issue, if trusted to the common method of altercation and debate and flying rumours."-_Hume's Essay on Miracles_, p. 195, 12mo; pp. 200, 201, 8vo, 1767; p. 127, 8vo, 1817.

[8] See the third Postscript appended to this edition.

[9] "We entertain a suspicion concerning any matter of fact, when the witnesses _contradict_ each other; when they are of a _suspicious_ character; when they have an _interest_ in what they affirm."-_Hume's Essay on Miracles_, p. 172, 12mo; p. 176, 8vo, 1767; p. 113, 8vo.

1817.

[10] "That testimony itself derives all its force from experience, seems very certain.... The first author, we believe, who stated fairly the connexion between the evidence of testimony and the evidence of experience, was HUME, in his Essay on Miracles, a work ... abounding in maxims of great use in the conduct of life."-_Edin. Review_, Sept.

1814, p. 328.

[11] "Suppose, for instance, that the fact which the testimony endeavours to establish partakes of the extraordinary and the marvellous; in that case, the evidence resulting from the testimony receives a diminution, greater or less in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual."-_Hume's Essay on Miracles_, p. 173, 12mo; p.

176, 8vo, 1767; p. 113, 8vo, 1817.

[12] "The ultimate standard by which we determine all disputes that may arise is always derived from experience and observation."-_Hume's Essay on Miracles_, p. 172, 12mo; p. 175, 8vo, 1767; p. 112, 8vo, 1817.

[13]

? ?a?ata p????.

?a? t?? t? ?a? ??t?? f???a?

???? ??? ???T? ??G??

?ede?da????? ?e?des? p????????

??apat??t? ????. PIND. Olymp. 1

[14] This doctrine, though hardly needing confirmation from authority, is supported by that of Hume; his eighth essay is, throughout, an argument for the doctrine of "Philosophical necessity," drawn entirely from the general uniformity, observable in the course of nature with respect to the principles of _human conduct_, as well as those of the material universe; from which uniformity, he observes, it is that we are enabled _in both cases_, to form our judgment by means of _Experience:_ "and if," says he, "we would explode any forgery in history, we cannot make use of a more convincing argument, than to prove that the actions ascribed to any person, are directly contrary to the course of nature....

"... The Veracity of Quintus Curtius is as suspicious when he describes the supernatural courage of Alexander, by which he was hurried on singly to attack mult.i.tudes, as when he describes his supernatural force and activity, by which he was able to resist them.

So readily and universally do we acknowledge a _uniformity in human motives and actions, as well as in the operations of body_."-_Eighth Essay_, p. 131, 12mo; p. 85, 8vo, 1817.

Accordingly, in the tenth essay, his use of the term "miracle," after having called it "a transgression of a law of nature," plainly shows that he meant to include _human_ nature: "no testimony," says he, "is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a nature that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish." The term "prodigy" also (which he all along employs as synonymous with "miracle") is applied to testimony, in the same manner, immediately after; "In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed ... that the falsehood of that testimony would be a kind of _prodigy_." Now had he meant to confine the meaning of "miracle," and "prodigy," to a violation of the laws of _matter_, the epithet "_miraculous_," applied even thus hypothetically, to _false testimony_, would be as unmeaning as the epithets "green" or "square;" the only possible sense in which we can apply to it, even in imagination, the term "miraculous," is that of "highly improbable,"-"contrary to those laws of nature which respect human conduct:" and in this sense he accordingly uses the word in the very next sentence: "When any one tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more _probable_ that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact which he relates should really have happened. I weigh the one _miracle_ against the other."-_Hume's Essay on Miracles_, pp. 176, 177, 12mo; p. 182, 8vo, 1767; p. 115, 8vo, 1817.

See also a pa.s.sage above quoted from the same essay, where he speaks of "the _miraculous_ accounts of travellers;" evidently using the word in this sense.

Perhaps it was superfluous to cite authority for applying the term "miracle" to whatever is "highly improbable;" but it is important to the students of Hume, to be fully aware that he uses those two expressions as synonymous; since otherwise they would mistake the meaning of that pa.s.sage which he justly calls "a general maxim worthy of your attention."

[15] "Events may be so extraordinary that they can hardly be established by testimony. We would not give credit to a man who would affirm that he saw a hundred dice thrown in the air, and that they all fell on the same faces."-_Edin. Review_, Sept. 1814, p. 327.

Let it be observed, that the instance here given is _miraculous_ in no other sense but that of being highly _improbable_.

[16] "If the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony in these circ.u.mstances loses all pretensions to authority."-_Hume's Essay on Miracles_, p. 179, 12mo; p. 185, 8vo, 1767; p. 117, 8vo, 1817.

[17] The supposed history from which the above extracts are given, is published entire in the work called _Historic Certainties._

[18] "I desire any one to lay his hand upon his heart, and after serious consideration declare whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a book, supported by such testimony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it relates."-_Hume's Essay on Miracles_, p. 200, 12mo; p. 206, 8vo, 1767; p. 131, 8vo, 1817.

Let it be borne in mind that Hume (as I have above remarked) continually employs the term "miracle" and "prodigy" to signify anything that is highly _improbable_ and _extraordinary._

[19] "The wise lend a very academic faith to every report which favours the pa.s.sion of the reporter, whether it magnifies his _country_, his family, or himself."-_Hume's Essay on Miracles_, p.

144, 12mo; p. 200, 8vo, 1767; p. 126, 8vo, 1817.

[20] "Nothing can be more contrary than such a philosophy (the academic or sceptical) to the supine indolence of the mind, its rash arrogance, its lofty pretensions, and its superst.i.tious credulity."-_Fifth Essay_, p. 68, 12mo; p. 41, 8vo, 1817.

[21] See _Hume's Essay on Miracles_, pp. 189, 191, 195, 12mo; pp. 193, 197, 201, 202, 8vo, 1767; pp. 124, 125, 126, 8vo, 1817.

[22] See _Edinburgh Review_ for October, 1842, p. 162.

[23] It is well know with how much learning and ingenuity the Rationalists of the German school have laboured to throw discredit on the literal interpretation of the narratives, both of the Old and the New Testaments; representing them as MYTHS, i.e., fables allegorically describing some physical or moral phaenomena-philosophical principles-systems, &c.-under the figure of actions performed by certain ideal personages; these allegories having been, afterwards, through the mistake of the vulgar, believed as history. Thus, the real historical existence of such a person as the supposed founder of the Christian religion, and the acts attributed to him, are denied in the literal sense, and the whole of the evangelical history is explained on the "mythical" theory.

Now it is a remarkable circ.u.mstance in reference to the point at present before us, that an eminent auth.o.r.ess of this century has distinctly declared that Napoleon Buonaparte was NOT A MAN, but a SYSTEM.

[24] Germaniae vocabulum recens et nuper additum; quoniam qui primi Rhenum transgressi Gallos expulerint, ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani vocati sint: ita nationis nomen in nomen gentis evaluisse paullatim, ut omnes, primum a victore ob metum, mox a seipsis invento nomine, Germani vocarentur.-_Tacitus, de Mor. Germ._

POSTSCRIPT TO THE THIRD EDITION.

It may seem arrogant for an obscure and nameless individual to claim the glory of having put to death the most formidable of all recorded heroes. But a shadowy champion may be overthrown by a shadowy antagonist. Many a terrific spectre has been laid by the beams of a halfpenny candle. And if I have succeeded in making out, in the foregoing pages, a probable case of suspicion, it must, I think, be admitted, that there is some ground for my present boast, of having _killed_ Napoleon Buonaparte.

Let but the circ.u.mstances of the case be considered. This mighty Emperor, who had been so long the bugbear of the civilized world, after having obtained successes and undergone reverses, such as never befel any (other at least) _real_ potentate, was at length sentenced to confinement in the remote island of St. Helena: a measure which many persons wondered at, and many objected to, on various grounds; not unreasonably, supposing the ill.u.s.trious exile to be a real person; but on the supposition of his being only a man of straw, the situation was exceedingly favourable for keeping him out of the way of impertinent curiosity, when not wanted, and for making him the foundation of any new plots that there might be occasion to conjure up.