Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte | Page 2

show this
carelessness about temporal goods; and, therefore, are guilty of gross
and culpable inconsistency, if they are comparatively careless about
what is far more important.
So, also, in the present case. If any man's mind were so constituted as
to reject the same evidence in all matters alike--if, for instance, he
really doubted or disbelieved the existence of Buonaparte, and
considered the Egyptian pyramids as fabulous, because, forsooth, he
had no "experience" of the erection of such huge structures, and had
experience of travellers telling huge lies--he would be regarded,
perhaps, as very silly, or as insane, but not as morally culpable. But if
(as is intimated in the concluding sentence of this work) a man is
influenced in one case by objections which, in another case, he would
deride, then he stands convicted of being unfairly biassed by his
prejudices.
It is only necessary to add, that as this work first appeared in the year
1819, many things are spoken of in the present tense, to which the past
would now be applicable.
Postscripts have been added to successive editions in reference to
subsequent occurrences.
FOOTNOTES:

[1] It was observed by some reviewer, that Hume himself, had he been
alive, would doubtless have highly enjoyed the joke! But even those
who have the greatest delight in ridicule, do not relish jokes at their
own expense. Hume may have inwardly laughed, while mystifying his
readers with arguments which he himself perceived to be futile. But he
did not mean the readers to perceive this. And it is not likely that he
would have been amused at seeing his own fallacies exposed and held
up to derision.
[2] See Elements of Rhetoric, p. i. ch. 2, § 4.
* * * * *

HISTORIC DOUBTS RELATIVE TO NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE.
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 anything of its interest.
We are still occupied in recounting the exploits, discussing the
character, inquiring into the present situation, and even conjecturing as
to the future prospects of Napoleon Buonaparte.
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 man. If it be
doubtful whether any history (exclusive of such as is confessedly
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 favourable and an
unfavourable portrait of almost every eminent man; but amidst all the
diversities of colouring, something of the same general outline is
always distinguishable. And even the virtues in the one description bear

some resemblance to the vices of another: rashness, for instance, will
be called courage, or courage, rashness; heroic firmness, and obstinate
pride, will correspond in the two opposite descriptions; and 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 in Egypt in a very
distressed situation, he returned to France, and found the nation, or at
least the army, so favourably 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