Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte | Page 4

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 inquire, 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 neighbours, 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. "I
would not have believed such a thing, if I had not seen it," is a common
preface or appendix to a narrative of marvels; and usually calls forth
from an intelligent hearer the appropriate answer, "no more will I."
Let us, however, endeavour to trace up some of this hearsay evidence
as far towards its source as we are able. Most persons would refer to the
newspapers as the authority from which their knowledge 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 favoured 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
everything 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 upon all these
points.
First, what means have the editors of newspapers for giving 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,)[6] they profess to refer
to the authority of certain "private correspondents" abroad; who these
correspondents are, what means they have of obtaining information, or
whether they exist at all, we have no way of ascertaining. We find
ourselves in the condition of the Hindoos, who are told by their priests
that the earth stands on an elephant, and the elephant on a tortoise; but
are left to find out for themselves what the tortoise stands on, or
whether it stands on anything at all.
So