Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte | Page 6

of making a gain of the credulity of travellers. In the accounts that
are the extant of the battle itself, published by persons professing to
have been present, the reader will find that there is a discrepancy of
_three or four hours_ as to the time when the battle began!--a battle, be
it remembered, not fought with javelins and arrows, like those of the

ancients, in which one part of a large army might be engaged, whilst a
distant portion of the same army knew nothing of it; but a battle
commencing (if indeed it were ever fought at all) with the _firing of
cannon_, which, would have announced pretty loudly what was going
on.
It is no less uncertain whether or no this strange personage poisoned in
Egypt an hospital--full of his own soldiers, and butchered in cold blood
a garrison that had surrendered. But not to multiply instances; the battle
of Borodino, which is represented as one of the greatest ever fought,
was unequivocally claimed as a victory by both parties; nor is the
question decided at this day. We have official accounts on both sides,
circumstantially detailed, in the names of supposed respectable persons,
professing to have been present on the spot; yet totally irreconcilable.
Both these accounts may be false; but since one of them must be false,
that one (it is no matter which we suppose) proves incontrovertibly this
important maxim: that _it is possible for a narrative--however
circumstantial--however steadily maintained--however public, and
however important, the events it relates--however grave the authority
on which it is published--to be nevertheless an entire fabrication!_
Many of the events which have been recorded were probably believed
much the more readily and firmly, from the apparent caution and
hesitation with which they were at first published--the vehement
contradiction in our papers of many pretended French accounts--and
the abuse lavished upon them for falsehood, exaggeration, and
gasconade. But is it not possible--is it not, indeed, perfectly
natural--that the publishers even of known falsehood should assume
this cautious demeanour, and this abhorrence of exaggeration, in order
the more easily to gain credit? Is it not also very possible, that those
who actually believed what they published, may have suspected mere
exaggeration in stories which were entire fictions? Many men have that
sort of simplicity, that they think themselves quite secure against being
deceived, provided they believe only part of the story they hear; when
perhaps the whole is equally false. So that perhaps these simple-hearted
editors, who were so vehement against lying bulletins, and so wary in
announcing their great news, were in the condition of a clown, who

thinks he has bought a great bargain of a Jew because he has beat down
the price perhaps from a guinea to a crown, for some article that is not
really worth a groat.
With respect to the character of Buonaparte, the dissonance is, if
possible, still greater. According to some, he was a wise, humane,
magnanimous hero; others paint him as a monster of cruelty, meanness,
and perfidy: some, even of those who are most inveterate against him,
speak very highly of his political and military ability: others place him
on the very verge of insanity. But allowing that all this may be the
colouring of party-prejudice, (which surely is allowing a great deal,)
there is one point to which such a solution will hardly apply: if there be
anything that can be clearly ascertained in history, one would think it
must be the personal courage of a military man; yet here we are as
much at a loss as ever; at the very same times, and on the same
occasions, he is described by different writers as a man of undaunted
intrepidity, and as an absolute poltroon.
What, then, are we to believe? If we are disposed to credit all that is
told us, we must believe in the existence not only of one, but of two or
three Buonapartes; if we admit nothing but what is well authenticated,
we shall be compelled to doubt of the existence of any.[9]
It appears, then, that those on whose testimony the existence and
actions of Buonaparte are generally believed, fail in ALL the most
essential points on which the credibility of witnesses depends: first, we
have no assurance that they have access to correct information;
secondly, they have an apparent interest in propagating falsehood; and,
thirdly, they palpably contradict each other in the most important
points.
* * * * *
Another circumstance which throws additional suspicion on these tales
is, that the whig-party, as they are called--the warm advocates for
liberty, and opposers of the encroachments of monarchical power--have
for some time past strenuously espoused the cause and vindicated the
character of Buonaparte, who is represented by all as having been, if

not a