{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_18087/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_18087","id":"gutenberg_18087","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18087","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","France","Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, 1769-1821","Napoleonic(Bookshelf)"],"text":"Produced by Jeannie Howse, Thierry Alberto and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team of Distributed Proofreaders\nEurope at http://dp.rastko.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHISTORIC\n\nDOUBTS\n\nRELATIVE TO\n\nNAPOLEON BUONAPARTE.\n\n\n  Is not the same reason available in theology and in politics?...\n  Will you follow truth but to a certain point?--BURKE'S\n  _Vindication of Natural Society._\n\n  The first author who stated fairly the connexion between the\n  evidence of testimony and the evidence of experience, was Hume, in\n  his ESSAY ON MIRACLES; a work _abounding in maxims of great use_ in\n  the conduct of life.--_Edinburgh Review_, Sept. 1814, p. 328.\n\n_NEW EDITION._\n\nLONDON:\nLONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.\nMDCCCLXV.\n\n\n\n\nLONDON:\nSAVILL AND EDWARDS, PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET,\nCOVENT GARDEN.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nSeveral of the readers of this little work (first published in 1819)\nhave derived much amusement from the mistakes of others respecting its\nnature and object. It has been by some represented as a serious\nattempt to inculcate universal scepticism; while others have\nconsidered it as a jeu d'esprit, &c.[1] The author does not, however,\ndesign to entertain his readers with accounts of the mistakes which,\nhave arisen respecting it; because many of them, he is convinced,\nwould be received with incredulity; and he could not, without an\nindelicate exposure of individuals, verify his anecdotes.\n\nBut some sensible readers have complained of the difficulty of\ndetermining _what_ they are to believe. Of the existence of\nBuonaparte, indeed, they remained fully convinced; nor, if it were\nleft doubtful, would any important results ensue; but if they can give\nno _satisfactory reason_ for their conviction, how can they know, it\nis asked, that they may not be mistaken as to other points of greater\nconsequence, on which they are no less fully convinced, but on which\nall men are _not_ agreed? The author has accordingly been solicited to\nendeavour to frame some canons which may furnish a standard for\ndetermining what evidence is to be received.\n\nThis he conceives to be impracticable, except to that extent to which\nit is accomplished by a sound system of Logic; including under that\ntitle, a portion--that which relates to the \"Laws of Evidence\"--of\nwhat is sometimes treated under the head of \"Rhetoric.\" But the full\nand complete accomplishment of such an object would confer on Man the\nunattainable attribute of infallibility.\n\nBut the difficulty complained of, he conceives to arise, in many\ninstances, from men's _mis-stating the grounds of their own\nconviction_. They are convinced, indeed, and perhaps with very\nsufficient reason; but they imagine this reason to be a different one\nfrom what it is. The evidence to which they have assented is applied\nto their minds in a different manner from that in which they believe\nthat it is--and suppose that it ought to be--applied. And when\nchallenged to defend and justify their own belief, they feel at a\nloss, because they are attempting to maintain a position which is\nnot, in fact, that in which their force lies.\n\nFor a development of the nature, the consequences, and the remedies of\nthis mistake, the reader is referred to \"Hinds on Inspiration,\" pp.\n30-46. If such a development is to be found in any earlier works, the\nAuthor of the following pages at least has never chanced to meet with\nany attempt of the kind.[2]\n\nIt has been objected, again, by some persons of no great logical\naccuracy of thought, that as there would not be any _moral blame_\nimputable to one who should seriously disbelieve, or doubt, the\nexistence of Buonaparte, so neither is a rejection of the\nScripture-histories to be considered as implying anything morally\nculpable.\n\nThe same objection, such as it is, would apply equally to many of the\nParables of the New Testament. It might be said, for instance, that as\na woman who should decline taking the trouble of searching for her\nlost \"piece of silver,\" or a merchant who should neglect making an\nadvantageous purchase of a \"goodly pearl,\" would be guilty of no moral\nwrong, it must follow that there is nothing morally wrong in\nneglecting to reclaim a lost sinner, or in rejecting the Gospel, &c.\n\nBut any man of common sense readily perceives that the force of these\nparables consists in the circumstance that men do _not_ usually show\nthis carelessness about temporal goods; and, therefore, are guilty of\ngross and culpable _inconsistency_, if they are comparatively\ncareless about what is far more important.\n\nSo, also, in the present case. If any man's mind were so constituted\nas to reject the same evidence in _all_ matters alike--if, for\ninstance, he really doubted or disbelieved the existence of\nBuonaparte, and considered the Egyptian pyramids as fabulous, because,\nforsooth, he had no \"experience\" of the erection of such huge\nstructures, and _had_ experience of travellers telling huge lies--he\nwould be regarded, perhaps, as very silly, or as insane, but not as\nmorally culpable. But if (as is intimated in the concluding sentence\nof this work) a man is influenced in one case by objections which, in\nanother case, he would deride, then he stands convicted of being\nunfairly biassed by his prejudices.\n\nIt is only necessary to add, that as this work first appeared in the\nyear 1819, many things are spoken of in the present tense, to which\nthe past would now be applicable.\n\nPostscripts have been added to successive editions in reference to\nsubsequent occurrences.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] It was observed by some reviewer, that Hume himself, had he been\nalive, would doubtless have highly enjoyed the joke! But even those\nwho have the greatest delight in ridicule, do not relish jokes at\n_their own expense_. Hume may have inwardly laughed, while mystifying\nhis readers with arguments which he himself perceived to be futile.\nBut he did not mean the readers to perceive this. And it is not likely\nthat he would have been amused at seeing his own fallacies exposed and\nheld up to derision.\n\n[2] See _Elements of Rhetoric_, p. i. ch. 2, Sec. 4.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nHISTORIC DOUBTS\nRELATIVE TO\nNAPOLEON BUONAPARTE.\n\n\nLong as the public attention has been occupied by the extraordinary\npersonage from whose ambition we are supposed to have so narrowly\nescaped, the subject seems to have lost scarcely anything of its\ninterest. We are still occupied in recounting the exploits, discussing\nthe character, inquiring into the present situation, and even\nconjecturing as to the future prospects of Napoleon Buonaparte.\n\nNor is this at all to be wondered at, if we consider the very\nextraordinary nature of those exploits, and of that character; their\ngreatness and extensive importance, as well as the unexampled\nstrangeness of the events, and also that strong additional stimulant,\nthe mysterious uncertainty that hangs over the character of the man.\nIf it be doubtful whether any history (exclusive of such as is\nconfessedly fabulous) ever attributed to its hero such a series of\nwonderful achievements compressed into so small a space of time, it\nis certain that to no one were ever assigned so many dissimilar\ncharacters.\n\nIt is true, indeed, that party-prejudices have drawn a favourable and\nan unfavourable portrait of almost every eminent man; but amidst all\nthe diversities of colouring, something of the same general outline is\nalways distinguishable. And even the virtues in the one description\nbear some resemblance to the vices of another: rashness, for instance,\nwill be called courage, or courage, rashness; heroic firmness, and\nobstinate pride, will correspond in the two opposite descriptions; and\nin some leading features both will agree. Neither the friends nor the\nenemies of Philip of Macedon, or of Julius Caesar, ever questioned\ntheir COURAGE, or their MILITARY SKILL.\n\nWith Buonaparte, however, it has been otherwise. This obscure Corsican\nadventurer, a man, according to some, of extraordinary talents and\ncourage, according to others, of very moderate abilities, and a rank\ncoward, advanced rapidly in the French army, obtained a high command,\ngained a series of important victories, and, elated by success,\nembarked in an expedition against Egypt; which was planned and\nconducted, according to some, with the most consummate skill,\naccording to others, with the utmost wildness and folly: he was\nunsuccessful, however; and leaving the army in Egypt in a very\ndistressed situation, he returned to France, and found the nation, or\nat least the army, so favourably disposed towards him, that he was\nenabled, with the utmost ease, to overthrow the existing government,\nand obtain for himself the supreme power; at first, under the modest\nappellation of Consul, but afterwards with the more sounding title of\nEmperor. While in possession of this power, he overthrew the most\npowerful coalitions of the other European States against him; and\nthough driven from the sea by the British fleets, overran nearly the\nwhole continent, triumphant; finishing a war, not unfrequently, in a\nsingle campaign, he entered the capitals of most of the hostile\npotentates, deposed and created Kings at his pleasure, and appeared\nthe virtual sovereign of the chief part of the continent, from the\nfrontiers of Spain to those of Russia. Even those countries we find\nhim invading with prodigious armies, defeating their forces,\npenetrating to their capitals, and threatening their total\nsubjugation. But at Moscow his progress is stopped: a winter of\nunusual severity, co-operating with the efforts of the Russians,\ntotally destroys his enormous host: and the German sovereigns throw\noff the yoke, and combine to oppose him. He raises another vast army,\nwhich is also ruined at Leipsic; and again another, with which, like a\nsecond Antaeus, he for some time maintains himself in France; but is\nfinally defeated, deposed, and banished to the island of Elba, of\nwhich the sovereignty is conferred on him. Thence he returns, in about\nnine months, at the head of 600 men, to attempt the deposition of King\nLouis, who had been peaceably recalled; the French nation declare in\nhis favour, and he is reinstated without a struggle. He raises another\ngreat army to oppose the allied powers, which is totally defeated at\nWaterloo; he is a second time deposed, surrenders to the British, and\nis placed in confinement at the island of St. Helena. Such is the\noutline of the eventful history presented to us; in the detail of\nwhich, however, there is almost every conceivable variety of\nstatement; while the motives and conduct of the chief actor are\ninvolved in still greater doubt, and the subject of still more eager\ncontroversy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the midst of these controversies, the preliminary question,\nconcerning the _existence_ of this extraordinary personage, seems\nnever to have occurred to any one as a matter of doubt; and to show\neven the smallest hesitation in admitting it, would probably be\nregarded as an excess of scepticism; on the ground that this point\nhas always been taken for granted by the disputants on all sides,\nbeing indeed implied by the very nature of their disputes.\n\nBut is it in fact found that _undisputed_ points are always such as\nhave been the most carefully examined as to the evidence on which they\nrest? that facts or principles which are taken for granted, without\ncontroversy, as the common basis of opposite opinions, are always\nthemselves established on sufficient grounds? On the contrary, is not\nany such fundamental point, from the very circumstance of its being\ntaken for granted at once, and the attention drawn off to some other\nquestion, likely to be admitted on insufficient evidence, and the\nflaws in that evidence overlooked?\n\nExperience will teach us that such instances often occur: witness the\nwell-known anecdote of the Royal Society; to whom King Charles II.\nproposed as a question, whence it is that a vessel of water receives\nno addition of weight from a live fish being put into it, though it\ndoes, if the fish be dead. Various solutions, of great ingenuity, were\nproposed, discussed, objected to, and defended; nor was it till they\nhad been long bewildered in the inquiry, that it occurred to them _to\ntry the experiment_; by which they at once ascertained that the\nphenomenon which they were striving to account for,--which was the\nacknowledged basis and substratum, as it were, of their debates,--had\nno existence but in the invention of the witty monarch.[3]\n\nAnother instance of the same kind is so very remarkable that I cannot\nforbear mentioning it. It was objected to the system of Copernicus\nwhen first brought forward, that if the earth turned on its axis, as\nhe represented, a stone dropped from the summit of a tower would not\nfall at the foot of it, but at a great distance to the west; _in the\nsame manner as a stone dropped from the mast-head of a ship in full\nsail, does not fall at the foot of the mast, but towards the stern_.\nTo this it was answered, that a stone being a _part_ of the earth\nobeys the same laws, and moves with it; whereas, it is no part of the\nship; of which, consequently, its motion is independent. This solution\nwas admitted by some, but opposed by others; and the controversy went\non with spirit; nor was it till _one hundred years_ after the death of\nCopernicus, that the experiment being tried, it was ascertained that\nthe stone thus dropped from the head of the mast _does_ fall at the\nfoot of it![4]\n\nLet it be observed that I am not now impugning any one particular\nnarrative; but merely showing generally, that what is _unquestioned_\nis not necessarily unquestionable; since men will often, at the very\nmoment when they are accurately sifting the evidence of some disputed\npoint, admit hastily, and on the most insufficient grounds, what they\nhave been accustomed to see taken for granted.\n\nThe celebrated Hume[5] has pointed out, also, the readiness with which\nmen believe, on very slight evidence, any story that pleases their\nimagination by its admirable and marvellous character. Such hasty\ncredulity, however, as he well remarks, is utterly unworthy of a\nphilosophical mind; which should rather suspend its judgment the more,\nin proportion to the strangeness of the account, and yield to none but\nthe most decisive and unimpeachable proofs.\n\nLet it, then, be allowed us, as is surely reasonable, just to inquire,\nwith respect to the extraordinary story I have been speaking of, on\nwhat evidence we believe it. We shall be told that it is _notorious_;\ni.e., in plain English, it is very _much talked about_. But as the\ngenerality of those who talk about Buonaparte do not even pretend to\nspeak from _their own authority_, but merely to repeat what they have\ncasually heard, we cannot reckon them as, in any degree, witnesses;\nbut must allow ninety-nine hundredths of what we are told to be mere\nhearsay, which would not be at all the more worthy of credit even if\nit were repeated by ten times as many more. As for those who profess\nto have _personally known_ Napoleon Buonaparte, and to have\n_themselves witnessed_ his transactions, I write not for them. _If any\nsuch there be_, who are inwardly conscious of the truth of all they\nrelate, I have nothing to say to them, but to beg that they will be\ntolerant and charitable towards their neighbours, who have not the\nsame means of ascertaining the truth, and who may well be excused for\nremaining doubtful about such extraordinary events, till most\nunanswerable proofs shall be adduced. \"I would not have believed such\na thing, if I had not seen it,\" is a common preface or appendix to a\nnarrative of marvels; and usually calls forth from an intelligent\nhearer the appropriate answer, \"_no more will I_.\"\n\nLet us, however, endeavour to trace up some of this hearsay evidence\nas far towards its source as we are able. Most persons would refer to\nthe _newspapers_ as the authority from which their knowledge on the\nsubject was derived; so that, generally speaking, we may say it is on\nthe testimony of the newspapers that men believe in the existence and\nexploits of Napoleon Buonaparte.\n\nIt is rather a remarkable circumstance, that it is common to hear\nEnglishmen speak of the impudent fabrications of foreign newspapers,\nand express wonder that any one can be found to credit them; while\nthey conceive that, in this favoured land, the liberty of the press is\na sufficient security for veracity. It is true they often speak\ncontemptuously of such \"newspaper-stories\" as last but a short time;\nindeed they continually see them contradicted within a day or two in\nthe same paper, or their falsity detected by some journal of an\nopposite party; but still whatever is _long adhered to_ and often\n_repeated_, especially if it also appear in _several different_\npapers (and this, though they notoriously copy from one another), is\nalmost sure to be generally believed. Whence this high respect which\nis practically paid to newspaper authority? Do men think, that because\na witness has been perpetually detected in falsehood, he may therefore\nbe the more safely believed whenever he is _not_ detected? or does\nadherence to a story, and frequent repetition of it, render it the\nmore credible? On the contrary, is it not a common remark in other\ncases, that a liar will generally stand to and reiterate what he has\nonce said, merely because he _has_ said it?\n\nLet us, if possible, divest ourselves of this superstitious veneration\nfor everything that appears \"in print,\" and examine a little more\nsystematically the evidence which is adduced.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI suppose it will not be denied that the three following are among the\nmost important points to be ascertained, in deciding on the\ncredibility of witnesses; first, whether they have the means of\ngaining correct _information_; secondly, whether they have any\n_interest_ in concealing truth, or propagating falsehood; and,\nthirdly, whether they _agree_ in their testimony. Let us examine the\npresent witnesses upon all these points.\n\nFirst, what means have the editors of newspapers for giving correct\ninformation? We know not, except from their own statements. Besides\nwhat is copied from other journals, foreign or British, (which is\nusually more than three-fourths of the news published,)[6] they\nprofess to refer to the authority of certain \"private correspondents\"\nabroad; _who_ these correspondents are, what means they have of\nobtaining information, or whether they exist at all, we have no way of\nascertaining. We find ourselves in the condition of the Hindoos, who\nare told by their priests that the earth stands on an elephant, and\nthe elephant on a tortoise; but are left to find out for themselves\nwhat the tortoise stands on, or whether it stands on anything at all.\n\nSo much for our clear knowledge of the means of _information_\npossessed by these witnesses; next, for the grounds on which we are to\ncalculate on their _veracity_.\n\nHave they not a manifest interest in circulating the wonderful\naccounts of Napoleon Buonaparte and his achievements, whether true or\nfalse? Few would read newspapers if they did not sometimes find\nwonderful or important news in them; and we may safely say that no\nsubject was ever found so inexhaustibly interesting as the present.\n\nIt may be urged, however, that there are several adverse political\nparties, of which the various public prints are respectively the\norgans, and who would not fail to expose each other's fabrications.[7]\nDoubtless they would, if they could do so without at the same time\nexposing _their own_; but identity of interests may induce a\ncommunity of operations up to a certain point. And let it be observed\nthat the object of contention between these rival parties is, _who_\nshall have the administration of public affairs, the control of public\nexpenditure, and the disposal of places: the question, I say, is, not\nwhether the people shall be governed or not, but, _by which party_\nthey shall be governed;--not whether the taxes shall be paid or not,\nbut _who_ shall _receive_ them. Now, it must be admitted that\nBuonaparte is a political bugbear, most convenient to _any_\nadministration: \"if you do not adopt our measures and reject those of\nour opponents, Buonaparte will be sure to prevail over you; if you do\nnot submit to the Government, at least under _our_ administration,\nthis formidable enemy will take advantage of your insubordination, to\nconquer and enslave you: pay your taxes cheerfully, or the tremendous\nBuonaparte will take all from you.\" Buonaparte, in short, was the\nburden of every song; his redoubted name was the charm which always\nsucceeded in unloosing the purse-strings of the nation. And let us not\nbe too sure,[8] safe as we now think ourselves, that some occasion may\nnot occur for again producing on the stage so useful a personage: it\nis not merely to naughty children in the nursery that the threat of\nbeing \"given to Buonaparte\" has proved effectual.\n\nIt is surely probable, therefore, that, with an object substantially\nthe same, all parties may have availed themselves of one common\ninstrument. It is not necessary to suppose that for this purpose they\nsecretly entered into a formal agreement; though, by the way, there\nare reports afloat, that the editors of the _Courier_ and _Morning\nChronicle_ hold amicable consultations as to the conduct of their\npublic warfare: I will not take upon me to say that this is\nincredible; but at any rate it is not necessary for the establishment\nof the probability I contend for. Neither again would I imply that\n_all_ newspaper editors are utterers of forged stories, \"knowing them\nto be forged;\" most likely the great majority of them publish what\nthey find in other papers with the same simplicity that their readers\nperuse it; and therefore, it must be observed, are not at all more\nproper than their readers to be cited as authorities.\n\nStill it will be said, that unless we suppose a regularly preconcerted\nplan, we must at least expect to find great discrepancies in the\naccounts published. Though they might adopt the general outline of\nfacts from one another, they would have to fill up the detail for\nthemselves; and in this, therefore, we should meet with infinite and\nirreconcilable variety.\n\nNow this is precisely the point I am tending to; for the fact exactly\naccords with the above supposition; the discordance and mutual\ncontradictions of these witnesses being such as would alone throw a\nconsiderable shade of doubt over their testimony. It is not in minute\ncircumstances alone that the discrepancy appears, such as might be\nexpected to appear in a narrative substantially true; but in very\ngreat and leading transactions, and such as are very intimately\nconnected with the supposed hero. For instance, it is by no means\nagreed whether Buonaparte led in person the celebrated charge over the\nbridge of Lodi, (for _celebrated_ it certainly is, as well as the\nsiege of Troy, whether either event ever really took place or no,) or\nwas safe in the rear, while Augereau performed the exploit. The same\ndoubt hangs over the charge of the French cavalry at Waterloo. The\npeasant Lacoste, who professed to have been Buonaparte's guide on the\nday of battle, and who earned a fortune by detailing over and over\nagain to visitors all the particulars of what the great man said and\ndid up to the moment of flight,--this same Lacoste has been suspected\nby others, besides me, of having never even been near the great man,\nand having fabricated the whole story for the sake of making a gain of\nthe credulity of travellers. In the accounts that are the extant of\nthe battle itself, published by persons professing to have been\npresent, the reader will find that there is a discrepancy of _three\nor four hours_ as to the time when the battle began!--a battle, be it\nremembered, not fought with javelins and arrows, like those of the\nancients, in which one part of a large army might be engaged, whilst a\ndistant portion of the same army knew nothing of it; but a battle\ncommencing (if indeed it were ever fought at all) with the _firing of\ncannon_, which, would have announced pretty loudly what was going on.\n\nIt is no less uncertain whether or no this strange personage poisoned\nin Egypt an hospital--full of his own soldiers, and butchered in cold\nblood a garrison that had surrendered. But not to multiply instances;\nthe battle of Borodino, which is represented as one of the greatest\never fought, was unequivocally claimed as a victory by both parties;\nnor is the question decided at this day. We have official accounts on\nboth sides, circumstantially detailed, in the names of supposed\nrespectable persons, professing to have been present on the spot; yet\ntotally irreconcilable. _Both_ these accounts _may_ be false; but\nsince _one_ of them _must_ be false, that one (it is no matter _which_\nwe suppose) proves incontrovertibly this important maxim: that _it is\npossible for a narrative--however circumstantial--however steadily\nmaintained--however public, and however important, the events it\nrelates--however grave the authority on which it is published--to be\nnevertheless an entire fabrication!_\n\nMany of the events which have been recorded were probably believed\nmuch the more readily and firmly, from the apparent caution and\nhesitation with which they were at first published--the vehement\ncontradiction in our papers of many pretended French accounts--and the\nabuse lavished upon them for falsehood, exaggeration, and gasconade.\nBut is it not possible--is it not, indeed, perfectly natural--that the\npublishers even of known falsehood should assume this cautious\ndemeanour, and this abhorrence of exaggeration, in order the more\neasily to gain credit? Is it not also very possible, that those who\nactually believed what they published, may have suspected mere\n_exaggeration_ in stories which were entire _fictions_? Many men have\nthat sort of simplicity, that they think themselves quite secure\nagainst being deceived, provided they believe only _part_ of the story\nthey hear; when perhaps the whole is equally false. So that perhaps\nthese simple-hearted editors, who were so vehement against lying\nbulletins, and so wary in announcing their great news, were in the\ncondition of a clown, who thinks he has bought a great bargain of a\nJew because he has beat down the price perhaps from a guinea to a\ncrown, for some article that is not really worth a groat.\n\nWith respect to the _character_ of Buonaparte, the dissonance is, if\npossible, still greater. According to some, he was a wise, humane,\nmagnanimous hero; others paint him as a monster of cruelty, meanness,\nand perfidy: some, even of those who are most inveterate against him,\nspeak very highly of his political and military ability: others place\nhim on the very verge of insanity. But allowing that all this may be\nthe colouring of party-prejudice, (which surely is allowing a great\ndeal,) there is one point to which such a solution will hardly apply:\nif there be anything that can be clearly ascertained in history, one\nwould think it must be the _personal courage of a military man_; yet\nhere we are as much at a loss as ever; at the very same times, and on\nthe same occasions, he is described by different writers as a man of\nundaunted intrepidity, and as an absolute poltroon.\n\nWhat, then, are we to believe? If we are disposed to credit all that\nis told us, we must believe in the existence not only of one, but of\ntwo or three Buonapartes; if we admit nothing but what is well\nauthenticated, we shall be compelled to doubt of the existence of\nany.[9]\n\nIt appears, then, that those on whose testimony the existence and\nactions of Buonaparte are generally believed, fail in ALL the most\nessential points on which the credibility of witnesses depends: first,\nwe have no assurance that they have access to correct information;\nsecondly, they have an apparent interest in propagating falsehood;\nand, thirdly, they palpably contradict each other in the most\nimportant points.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnother circumstance which throws additional suspicion on these tales\nis, that the whig-party, as they are called--the warm advocates for\nliberty, and opposers of the encroachments of monarchical power--have\nfor some time past strenuously espoused the cause and vindicated the\ncharacter of Buonaparte, who is represented by all as having been, if\nnot a tyrant, at least an absolute despot. One of the most forward in\nthis cause is a gentleman, who once stood foremost in holding up this\nvery man to public execration--who first published, and long\nmaintained against popular incredulity, the accounts of his atrocities\nin Egypt. Now that such a course should be adopted for party-purposes;\nby those who are aware that the whole story is a fiction, and the hero\nof it imaginary, seems not very incredible; but if they believed in\nthe real existence of this despot, I cannot conceive how they could so\nforsake their principles as to advocate his cause, and eulogize his\ncharacter.\n\nBesides the many strange and improbable circumstances in the history\nof Buonaparte that have been already noticed, there are many others,\ntwo of which it may be worth while to advert to.\n\nOne of the most incredible is the received account of the persons\nknown as the \"Detenus.\" It is well known that a great number of\nEnglish gentlemen passed many years, in the early part of the present\ncentury, abroad;--by their own account, in France. Their statement\nwas, that while travelling in that country for their amusement, as\npeaceable tourists, they were, on the sudden breaking out of a war,\nseized by this terrible Buonaparte, and kept prisoners for about\ntwelve years, contrary to all the usages of civilized nations--to all\nprinciples of justice, of humanity, of enlightened policy; many of\nthem thus wasting in captivity the most important portion of their\nlives, and having all their prospects blighted.\n\nNow whether these persons were in reality exiles by choice, for the\nsake of keeping out of the way of creditors, or of enjoying the\nsociety of those they preferred to their own domestic circle, I do not\nventure to conjecture. But let the reader consider whether _any_\nconjecture can be _more_ improbable than the statement actually made.\n\nIt is, indeed, credible that ambition may prompt an unscrupulous man\nto make the most enormous sacrifices of human life, and to perpetrate\nthe most atrocious crimes, for the advancement of his views of\nconquest. But that this _great_ man--as he is usually reckoned even by\nadversaries--this hero according to some--this illustrious warrior,\nand mighty sovereign--should have stooped to be guilty of an act of\nmean and petty malice worthy of a spiteful old woman,--a piece of\npaltry cruelty which could not at all conduce to his success in the\nwar, or produce any effect except to degrade his country, and\nexasperate ours;--this, surely, is quite incredible. \"Pizarro,\" says\nElvira in Kotzebue's play, \"if not always justly, at least act always\ngreatly.\"\n\nBut a still more wonderful circumstance connected with this\ntransaction remains behind. A large portion of the English nation, and\namong these the whole of the Whig party, are said to have expressed\nthe most vehement indignation, mingled with compassion, at the\nbanishment from Europe, and confinement in St. Helena, of this great\nman. No considerations of regard for the peace and security of our own\ncountry, no dread of the power of so able and indefatigable a warrior,\nand so inveterate an enemy, should have induced us, they thought, to\nsubject this formidable personage to a confinement, which was far\nless severe than that to which he was said to have subjected such\nnumbers of our countrymen, the harmless _non-belligerent_ travellers,\nwhom (according to the story) he kidnapped in France, with no object\nbut to gratify the basest and most unmanly spite.\n\nBut that there is no truth in that story, and that it was not believed\nby those who manifested so much sympathy and indignation on this great\nman's account, is sufficiently proved by that very sympathy and\nindignation.\n\nThere are again other striking improbabilities connected with the\nPolish nation in the history before us. Buonaparte is represented as\nhaving always expressed the strongest sympathy with that ill-used\npeople; and they, as being devotedly attached to him, and fighting\nwith the utmost fidelity and bravery in his armies, in which some of\nthem attained high commands. Now he had it manifestly in his power at\none period (according to the received accounts), with a stroke of his\npen, to re-establish Poland as an independent state. For, in his last\nRussian war, he had complete occupation of the country (of which the\npopulation was perfectly friendly); the Russian portion of it was his\nby right of conquest; and Austria and Prussia, then his allies, and\nalmost his subjects, would gladly have resigned their portions in\nexchange for some of the provinces they had ceded to France, and\nwhich were, to him, of little value, but, to them, important. And,\nindeed, Prussia was (as we are told) so thoroughly humbled and\nweakened that he might easily have enforced the cession of\nPrussian-Poland, even without any compensation. And the\nre-establishment of the Polish kingdom would have been as evidently\npolitic as it was reasonable. The independence of a faithful and\ndevoted ally, at enmity with the surrounding nations--the very nations\nthat were the most likely to combine (as they often had done) against\nhim,--this would have given him, at no cost, a kind of strong garrison\nto maintain his power, and keep his enemies in check.\n\nYet this most obvious step, the history tells us, he did not take; but\nmade flattering speeches to the Poles, used their services, and did\nnothing for them!\n\nThis is, alone, sufficiently improbable. But we are required moreover\nto believe that the Poles,--instead of _execrating_ this man, who had\ndone them the unpardonable wrong of wantonly disappointing the\nexpectations he had, for his own purposes, excited, thus adding\ntreachery to ingratitude--instead of this, continued to the last as\nmuch devoted to him as ever, and even now idolize his memory! We are\nto believe, in short, that this Buonaparte, not only in his own\nconduct and adventures violated all the established rules of\nprobability, but also caused all other persons, as many as came in\ncontact with him, to act as no mortals ever did act before: may we not\nadd, as no mortals ever did act at all?\n\nMany other improbabilities might be added to the list, and will be\nfound in the complete edition of that history, from which some\nextracts will be presently given, and which has been published (under\nthe title of \"Historic Certainties\") by Aristarchus Newlight, with a\nlearned commentary (not, indeed, adopting the views contained in these\npages, but) quite equal in ingenuity to a late work on the \"Hebrew\nMonarchy.\"\n\nAfter all, it may be expected that many who perceive the force of\nthese objections, will yet be loth to think it possible that they and\nthe public at large can have been so long and so greatly imposed upon.\nAnd thus it is that the magnitude and boldness of a fraud becomes its\nbest support. The millions who for so many ages have believed in\nMahomet or Brahma, lean as it were on each other for support; and not\nhaving vigour of mind enough boldly to throw off vulgar prejudices,\nand dare be wiser than the multitude, persuade themselves that what so\nmany have acknowledged must be true. But I call on those who boast\ntheir philosophical freedom of thought, and would fain tread in the\nsteps of Hume and other inquirers of the like exalted and speculative\ngenius, to follow up fairly and fully their own principles, and,\nthrowing off the shackles of authority, to examine carefully the\nevidence of whatever is proposed to them, before they admit its truth.\n\nThat even in this enlightened age, as it is called, a whole nation may\nbe egregiously imposed upon, even in matters which intimately concern\nthem, may be proved (if it has not been already proved) by the\nfollowing instance: it was stated in the newspapers, that, a month\nafter the battle of Trafalgar, an English officer, who had been a\nprisoner of war, and was exchanged, returned to this country from\nFrance, and beginning to condole with his countrymen on the terrible\n_defeat_ they had sustained, was infinitely astonished to learn that\nthe battle of Trafalgar was a splendid victory. He had been assured,\nhe said, that in that battle the English had been totally defeated;\nand the French were fully and universally persuaded that such was the\nfact. Now if this report of the belief of the French nation was _not_\ntrue, the British Public were completely imposed upon; if it _were_\ntrue, then both nations were, at the same time, rejoicing in the event\nof the same battle, as a signal victory to themselves; and\nconsequently one or other, at least, of these nations must have been\nthe dupes of their government: for if the battle was never fought at\nall, or was not decisive on either side, in that case _both_ parties\nwere deceived. This instance, I conceive, is absolutely demonstrative\nof the point in question.\n\n\"But what shall we say to the testimony of those many respectable\npersons who went to Plymouth on purpose, and saw Buonaparte with their\nown eyes? must they not trust their senses?\" I would not disparage\neither the eyesight or the veracity of these gentlemen. I am ready to\nallow that they went to Plymouth for the purpose of seeing Buonaparte;\nnay, more, that they actually rowed out into the harbour in a boat,\nand came alongside of a man-of-war, on whose deck they saw a man in a\ncocked hat, who, _they were told_, was Buonaparte. This is the utmost\npoint to which their testimony goes; how they ascertained that this\nman in the cocked hat had gone through all the marvellous and romantic\nadventures with which we have so long been amused, we are not told.\nDid they perceive in his physiognomy, his true name, and authentic\nhistory? Truly this evidence is such as country people give one for a\nstory of apparitions; if you discover any signs of incredulity, they\ntriumphantly show the very house which the ghost haunted, the\nidentical dark corner where it used to vanish, and perhaps even the\ntombstone of the person whose death it foretold. Jack Cade's nobility\nwas supported by the same irresistible kind of evidence: having\nasserted that the eldest son of Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, was\nstolen by a beggar-woman, \"became a bricklayer when he came to age,\"\nand was the father of the supposed Jack Cade; one of his companions\nconfirms the story, by saying, \"Sir, he made a chimney in my father's\nhouse, and the bricks are alive at this day to testify it; therefore,\ndeny it not.\"\n\nMuch of the same kind is the testimony of our brave countrymen, who\nare ready to produce the scars they received in fighting against this\nterrible Buonaparte. That they fought and were wounded, they may\nsafely testify; and probably they no less firmly _believe_ what they\nwere _told_ respecting the cause in which they fought: it would have\nbeen a high breach of discipline to doubt it; and they, I conceive,\nare men better skilled in handling a musket, than in sifting evidence,\nand detecting imposture. But I defy any one of them to come forward\nand declare, _on his own knowledge_, what was the cause in which he\nfought,--under whose commands the opposed generals acted,--and whether\nthe person who issued those commands did really perform the mighty\nachievements we are told of.\n\nLet those, then, who pretend to philosophical freedom of inquiry,--who\nscorn to rest their opinions on popular belief, and to shelter\nthemselves under the example of the unthinking multitude, consider\ncarefully, each one for himself, what is the evidence proposed to\nhimself in particular, for the existence of such a person as Napoleon\nBuonaparte:--I do not mean, whether there ever was a person bearing\nthat _name_, for that is a question of no consequence; but whether any\nsuch person ever performed all the wonderful things attributed to\nhim;--let him then weigh well the objections to that evidence, (of\nwhich I have given but a hasty and imperfect sketch,) and if he then\nfinds it amount to anything _more_ than a probability, I have only to\ncongratulate him on his easy faith.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut the same testimony which would have great weight in establishing a\nthing intrinsically probable, will lose part of this weight in\nproportion as the matter attested is improbable; and if adduced in\nsupport of anything that is at variance with uniform experience,[10]\nwill be rejected at once by all sound reasoners. Let us then consider\nwhat sort of a story it is that is proposed to our acceptance. How\ngrossly contradictory are the reports of the different authorities, I\nhave already remarked: but consider, by itself, the story told by any\none of them; it carries an air of fiction and romance on the very face\nof it. All the events are great, and splendid, and marvellous;[11] great\narmies,--great victories,--great frosts,--great reverses,--\"hair-breadth\n'scapes,\"--empires subverted in a few days; everything happened in\ndefiance of political calculations, and in opposition to the\n_experience_ of past times; everything upon that grand scale, so common\nin Epic Poetry, so rare in real life; and thus calculated to strike the\nimagination of the vulgar, and to remind the sober-thinking few of the\nArabian Nights. Every event, too, has that _roundness_ and completeness\nwhich is so characteristic of fiction; nothing is done by halves; we\nhave _complete_ victories,--_total_ overthrows, _entire_ subversion of\nempires,--_perfect_ re-establishments of them,--crowded upon us in rapid\nsuccession. To enumerate the improbabilities of each of the several\nparts of this history, would fill volumes; but they are so fresh in\nevery one's memory, that there is no need of such a detail: let any\njudicious man, not ignorant of history and of human nature, revolve them\nin his mind, and consider how far they are conformable to\nExperience,[12] our best and only sure guide. In vain will he seek in\nhistory for something similar to this wonderful Buonaparte; \"nought but\nhimself can be his parallel.\"\n\nWill the conquests of Alexander be compared with his? _They_ were\neffected over a rabble of effeminate, undisciplined barbarians; else\nhis progress would hardly have been so rapid: witness his father\nPhilip, who was much longer occupied in subduing the comparatively\ninsignificant territory of the warlike and civilized Greeks,\nnotwithstanding their being divided into numerous petty States, whose\nmutual jealousy enabled him to contend with them separately. But the\nGreeks had never made such progress in arts and arms as the great and\npowerful States of Europe, which Buonaparte is represented as so\nspeedily overpowering. His empire has been compared to the Roman: mark\nthe contrast; he gains in a few years, that dominion, or at least\ncontrol, over Germany, wealthy, civilized, and powerful, which the\nRomans in the plenitude of their power, could not obtain, during a\nstruggle of as many centuries, against the ignorant half-savages who\nthen possessed it; of whom Tacitus remarks, that, up to his own time\nthey had been \"triumphed over rather than conquered.\"\n\nAnother peculiar circumstance in the history of this extraordinary\npersonage is, that when it Is found convenient to represent him as\ndefeated, though he is by no means defeated by halves, but involved in\nmuch more sudden and total ruin than the personages of real history\nusually meet with; yet, if it is thought fit he should be restored, it\nis done as quickly and completely as if Merlin's rod had been\nemployed. He enters Russia with a prodigious army, which is totally\nruined by an unprecedented hard winter; (everything relating to this\nman is _prodigious_ and _unprecedented_;) yet in a few months we find\nhim intrusted with another great army in Germany, which is also\ntotally ruined at Leipsic; making, inclusive of the Egyptian, the\nthird great army thus totally lost: yet the French are so good-natured\nas to furnish him with another sufficient to make a formidable stand\nin France; he is, however, _conquered, and presented with the\nsovereignty of Elba_; (surely, by the bye, some more _probable_ way\nmight have been found of disposing of him, till again wanted, than to\nplace him thus on the very verge of his ancient dominions;) thence he\nreturns to France, where he is received with open arms, and enabled to\nlose a fifth great army at Waterloo; yet so eager were these people to\nbe a sixth time led to destruction, that it was found necessary to\nconfine _him_ in an island some thousand miles off, and to quarter\nforeign troops upon _them_, lest they should make an insurrection in\nhis favour?[13] Does any one believe all this, and yet refuse to\nbelieve a miracle? Or rather, what is this but a miracle? Is it not a\nviolation of the laws of nature? for surely there are moral laws of\nnature as well as physical; which though more liable to exceptions in\nthis or that particular case, are no less _true as general rules_ than\nthe laws of matter, and therefore cannot be violated and contradicted\n_beyond a certain point_, without a miracle.[14]\n\nNay, there is this additional circumstance which renders the\ncontradiction of Experience more glaring in this case than in that of\nthe miraculous histories which ingenious sceptics have held up to\ncontempt: all the advocates of miracles admit that they are rare\nexceptions to the general course of nature; but contend that they must\nneeds be so, on account of the rarity of those extraordinary\n_occasions_ which are the _reason_ of their being performed: a\nMiracle, they say, does not happen every day, because a Revelation is\nnot given every day. It would be foreign to the present purpose to\nseek for arguments against this answer; I leave it to those who are\nengaged in the controversy, to find a reply to it; but my present\nobject is, to point out that this solution does not at all apply in\nthe present case. Where is the peculiarity of the _occasion_? What\nsufficient _reason_ is there for a series of events occurring in the\neighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which never took place before?\nWas Europe at that period peculiarly weak, and in a state of\nbarbarism, that one man could achieve such conquests, and acquire such\na vast empire? On the contrary, she was flourishing in the height of\nstrength and civilization. Can the persevering attachment and blind\ndevotedness of the French to this man, be accounted for by his being\nthe descendant of a long line of kings, whose race was hallowed by\nhereditary veneration? No; we are told he was a low-born usurper, and\nnot even a Frenchman! Is it that he was a good and kind sovereign? He\nis represented not only as an imperious and merciless despot, but as\nmost wantonly careless of the lives of his soldiers. Could the French\narmy and people have failed to hear from the wretched survivors of his\nsupposed Russian expedition, how they had left the corpses of above\n100,000 of their comrades bleaching on the snow-drifts of that dismal\ncountry, whither his mad ambition had conducted him, and where his\nselfish cowardice had deserted them? Wherever we turn to seek for\ncircumstances that may help to account for the events of this\nincredible story, we only meet with such as aggravate its\nimprobability.[15] Had it been told of some distant country, at a\nremote period, we could not have told what peculiar circumstances\nthere might have been to render probable what seems to us most\nstrange; and yet in _that_ case every philosophical sceptic, every\nfree-thinking speculator, would instantly have rejected such a\nhistory, as utterly unworthy of credit. What, for instance, would the\ngreat Hume, or any of the philosophers of his school, have said, if\nthey had found in the antique records of any nation, such a passage\nas this? \"There was a certain man of Corsica, whose name was Napoleon,\nand he was one of the chief captains of the host of the French; and he\ngathered together an army, and went and fought against Egypt: but when\nthe king of Britain heard thereof, he sent ships of war and valiant\nmen to fight against the French in Egypt. So they warred against them,\nand prevailed, and strengthened the hands of the rulers of the land\nagainst the French, and drave away Napoleon from before the city of\nAcre. Then Napoleon left the captains and the army that were in Egypt,\nand fled, and returned back to France. So the French people, took\nNapoleon, and made him ruler over them, and he became exceeding great,\ninsomuch that there was none like him of all that had ruled over\nFrance before.\"\n\nWhat, I say, would Hume have thought of this, especially if he had\nbeen told that it was at this day generally credited? Would he not\nhave confessed that he had been mistaken in supposing there was a\npeculiarly blind credulity and prejudice in favour of everything that\nis accounted _sacred_;[16] for that, since even professed sceptics\nswallow implicitly such a story as this, it appears there must be a\nstill blinder prejudice in favour of everything that is _not_\naccounted sacred?\n\nSuppose, again, we found in this history such passages as the\nfollowing: \"And it came to pass after these things that Napoleon\nstrengthened himself, and gathered together another host instead of\nthat which he had lost, and went and warred against the Prussians, and\nthe Russians, and the Austrians, and all the rulers of the north\ncountry, which were confederate against him. And the ruler of Sweden,\nalso, which was a Frenchman, warred against Napoleon. So they went\nforth, and fought against the French in the plain of Leipsic. And the\nFrench were discomfited before their enemies, and fled, and came to\nthe rivers which are behind Leipsic, and essayed to pass over, that\nthey might escape out of the hand of their enemies; but they could\nnot, for Napoleon had broken down the bridges: so the people of the\nnorth countries came upon them, and smote them with a very grievous\nslaughter.\" ...\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Then the ruler of Austria and all the rulers of the north countries\nsent messengers unto Napoleon to speak peaceably unto him, saying, Why\nshould there be war between us any more? Now Napoleon had put away\nhis wife, and taken the daughter of the ruler of Austria to wife. So\nall the counsellors of Napoleon came and stood before him, and said,\nBehold now these kings are merciful kings; do even as they say unto\nthee; knowest thou not yet that France is destroyed? But he spake\nroughly unto his counsellors, and drave them, out from his presence,\nneither would he hearken unto their voice. And when all the kings saw\nthat, they warred against France, and smote it with the edge of the\nsword, and came near to Paris, which is the royal city, to take it: so\nthe men of Paris went out, and delivered up the city to them. Then\nthose kings spake kindly unto the men of Paris, saying, Be of good\ncheer, there shall no harm happen unto you. Then were the men of Paris\nglad, and said, Napoleon is a tyrant; he shall no more rule over us.\nAlso all the princes, the judges, the counsellors, and the captains\nwhom Napoleon had raised up even from the lowest of the people, sent\nunto Lewis the brother of King Lewis, whom they had slain, and made\nhim king over France.\" ...\n\n... ... ... ... ... ... ...\n\n\"And when Napoleon saw that the kingdom was departed from him, he said\nunto the rulers which came against him, Let me, I pray you, give the\nkingdom unto my son: but they would not hearken unto him. Then he\nspake yet again, saying, Let me, I pray you, go and live in the island\nof Elba, which is over against Italy, nigh unto the coast of France;\nand ye shall give me an allowance for me and my household, and the\nland of Elba also for a possession. So they made him ruler of\nElba.\"...\n\n... ... ... ... ... ... ...\n\n\"In those days the Pope returned unto his own land. Now the French,\nand divers other nations of Europe, are servants of the Pope, and hold\nhim in reverence; but he is an abomination unto the Britons, and to\nthe Prussians, and to the Russians, and to the Swedes. Howbeit the\nFrench had taken away all his lands, and robbed him of all that he\nhad, and carried him away captive into France. But when the Britons,\nand the Prussians, and the Russians, and the Swedes, and the rest of\nthe nations that were confederate against France, came thither, they\ncaused the French to set the Pope at liberty, and to restore all his\ngoods that they had taken; likewise they gave him back all his\npossessions; and he went home in peace, and ruled over his own city as\nin times past.\"...\n\n... ... ... ... ... ... ...\n\n\"And it came to pass when Napoleon had not yet been a full year at\nElba, that he said unto his men of war that clave unto him, Go to, let\nus go back to France, and fight against King Lewis, and thrust him out\nfrom being king. So he departed, he and six hundred men with him that\ndrew the sword, and warred against King Lewis. Then all the men of\nBelial gathered themselves together, and said, God save Napoleon. And\nwhen Lewis saw that, he fled, and gat him into the land of Batavia:\nand Napoleon ruled over France,\" &c. &c. &c.[17]\n\nNow if a free-thinking philosopher--one of those who advocate the\ncause of unbiassed reason, and despise pretended revelations--were to\nmeet with such a tissue of absurdities as this in an old Jewish\nrecord, would he not reject it at once as too palpable an\nimposture[18] to deserve even any inquiry into its evidence? Is that\ncredible then of the civilized Europeans now, which could not, if\nreported of the semi-barbarous Jews 3000 years ago, be established by\nany testimony? Will it be answered, that \"there is nothing\n_supernatural_ in all this?\" Why is it, then, that you object to what\nis _supernatural_--that you reject every account of _miracles_--if not\nbecause they are _improbable_? Surely then a story equally or still\nmore improbable, is not to be implicitly received, merely on the\nground that it is _not_ miraculous: though in fact, as I have already\n(in note, p. 39,) shown from Hume's authority, it _is_ really\nmiraculous. The opposition to Experience has been proved to be as\ncomplete in this case, as in what are commonly called miracles; and\nthe reasons assigned for that contrariety by the defenders of _them_,\ncannot be pleaded in the present instance. If then philosophers, who\nreject every wonderful story that is maintained by priests, are yet\nfound ready to believe _everything else_, however improbable, they\nwill surely lay themselves open to the accusation brought against them\nof being unduly prejudiced against whatever relates to religion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is one more circumstance which I cannot forbear mentioning,\nbecause it so much adds to the air of fiction which pervades every\npart of this marvellous tale; and that is, the _nationality_ of\nit.[19]\n\nBuonaparte prevailed over all the hostile States in turn, _except\nEngland_; in the zenith of his power, his fleets were swept from the\nsea, _by England_; his troops always defeat an equal, and frequently\neven a superior number of those of any other nation, _except the\nEnglish_; and with them it is just the reverse; twice, and twice only,\nhe is personally engaged against an _English commander_, and both\ntimes he is totally defeated; at Acre, and at Waterloo; and to crown\nall, _England_ finally crushes this tremendous power, which had so\nlong kept the continent in subjection or in alarm; and to the\n_English_ he surrenders himself prisoner! Thoroughly national, to be\nsure! It _may_ be all very true; but I would only ask, _if_ a story\n_had_ been fabricated for the express purpose of amusing the English\nnation, could it have been contrived more ingeniously? It would do\nadmirably for an epic poem; and indeed bears a considerable\nresemblance to the Iliad and the AEneid; in which Achilles and the\nGreeks, AEneas and the Trojans, (the ancestors of the Romans) are so\nstudiously held up to admiration. Buonaparte's exploits seem magnified\nin order to enhance the glory of his conquerors; just as Hector is\nallowed to triumph during the absence of Achilles, merely to give\nadditional splendour to his overthrow by the arm of that invincible\nhero. Would not this circumstance alone render a history rather\n_suspicious_ in the eyes of an acute critic, even if it were not\nfilled with such gross improbabilities; and induce him to suspend his\njudgment, till very satisfactory evidence (far stronger than can be\nfound in this case) should be produced?\n\nIs it then too much to demand of the wary academic[20] a suspension of\njudgment as to the \"life and adventures of Napoleon Buonaparte?\" I do\nnot pretend to _decide_ positively that there is not, nor ever was,\nany such person; but merely to propose it as a _doubtful_ point, and\none the more deserving of careful investigation, from the very\ncircumstance of its having hitherto been admitted without inquiry. Far\nless would I undertake to decide what is or has been the real state of\naffairs. He who points out the improbability of the current story, is\nnot bound to suggest an hypothesis of his own;[21] though it may\nsafely be affirmed, that it would be hard to invent any one more\nimprobable than the received one. One may surely be allowed to\nhesitate in admitting the stories which the ancient poets tell, of\nearthquakes and volcanic eruptions being caused by imprisoned giants,\nwithout being called upon satisfactorily to account for those\nphenomena.\n\nAmidst the defect of valid evidence under which, as I have already\nshown, we labour in the present instance, it is hardly possible to\noffer more than here and there a probable conjecture; or to pronounce\nhow much may be true, and how much fictitious, in the accounts\npresented to us. For, it is to be observed that this case is much\n_more_ open to sceptical doubts even than some miraculous histories;\nsince some of _them_ are of such a nature that you cannot consistently\nadmit a part and reject the rest; but are bound, if you are satisfied\nas to the reality of any one miracle, to embrace the whole system; so\nthat it is necessary for the sceptic to impeach the evidence of _all_\nof them, separately, and collectively: whereas, _here_, each single\npoint requires to be _established_ separately, since no one of them\nauthenticates the rest. Supposing there be a state-prisoner at St.\nHelena, (which, by the way, it is acknowledged many of the French\ndisbelieve,) how do we know who he is, or why he is confined there?\nThere have been state-prisoners before now, who were never guilty of\nsubjugating half Europe, and whose offences have been very imperfectly\nascertained. Admitting that there have been bloody wars going on for\nseveral years past, which is highly probable, it does not follow that\nthe events of those wars were such as we have been told;--that\nBuonaparte was the author and conductor of them;--or that such a\nperson ever existed. What disturbances may have taken place in the\ngovernment of the French people, we, and even nineteen-twentieths of\n_them_, have no means of learning but from imperfect hearsay evidence;\nand how much credit they themselves attach to that evidence is very\ndoubtful. This at least is certain: that a M. Berryer, a French\nadvocate, has published memoirs, professing to record many of the\nevents of the recent history of France, in which, among other things,\nhe states his conviction that Buonaparte's escape from Elba was\nDESIGNED AND CONTRIVED BY THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT.[22] And we are\nassured by many travellers that this was, and is, commonly reported in\nFrance.\n\nNow that the French should believe the whole story about Buonaparte\naccording to this version of it, does seem utterly incredible. Let any\none suppose them seriously believing that we maintained for many years\na desperate struggle against this formidable emperor of theirs, in the\ncourse of which we expended such an enormous amount of blood and\ntreasure as is reported;--that we finally, after encountering enormous\nrisks, succeeded in subduing him, and secured him in a place of safe\nexile;--and that, in less than a year after, we turned him out again,\nlike a bag-fox,--or rather, a bag-lion,--for the sake of amusing\nourselves by again staking all that was dear to us on the event of a\ndoubtful and bloody battle, in which defeat must be ruinous, and\nvictory, if obtained at all, must cost us many thousands of our best\nsoldiers. Let any one force himself for a moment to conceive the\nFrench seriously believing such a mass of absurdity; and the inference\nmust be that such a people must be prepared to believe anything. They\nmight fancy their own country to abound not only with Napoleons, but\nwith dragons and centaurs, and \"men whose heads do grow beneath their\nshoulders,\" or anything else that any lunatic ever dreamt of. If we\ncould suppose the French capable of such monstrous credulity as the\nabove supposition would imply, it is plain their testimony must be\naltogether worthless.\n\nBut, on the other hand, suppose them to be aware that the British\nGovernment have been all along imposing on us, and it is quite natural\nthat they should deride our credulity, and try whether there is\nanything too extravagant for us to swallow. And indeed, if Buonaparte\nwas in fact altogether a phantom conjured up by the British Ministers,\nthen it is _true_ that his escape from Elba really _was_, as well as\n_the rest of his exploits_, a contrivance of theirs.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut whatever may be believed by the French relative to the recent\noccurrences, in their own country, and whatever may be the real\ncharacter of these occurrences, of this at least we are well assured,\nthat there have been numerous bloody wars with France under the\ndominion of the _Bourbons_: and we are now told that France is\ngoverned by a Bourbon king, of the name of Lewis, who professes to be\nin the twenty-third year of his reign. Let every one conjecture for\nhimself. I am far from pretending to decide who may have been the\ngovernor or governors of the French nation, and the leaders of their\narmies, for several years past. Certain it is, that when men are\nindulging their inclination for the marvellous, they always show a\nstrong propensity to accumulate upon _one_ individual (real or\nimaginary) the exploits of many; besides multiplying and exaggerating\nthese exploits a thousandfold. Thus, the expounders of the ancient\nmythology tell us there were several persons of the name of Hercules,\n(either originally bearing that appellation, or having it applied to\nthem as an honour,) whose collective feats, after being dressed up in\na sufficiently marvellous garb, were attributed to a single hero. Is\nit not just possible, that during the rage for words of Greek\nderivation, the title of \"Napoleon,\" ({~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nOMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH\nOXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~},) which\nsignifies \"Lion of the forest,\" may have been conferred by the popular\nvoice on more than one favorite general, distinguished for irresistible\nvalour? Is it not also possible that \"BUONA PARTE\" may have been\noriginally a sort of cant term applied to the \"good (i.e., the bravest\nor most patriotic) part\" of the French army, collectively; and have been\nafterwards mistaken for the proper name of an individual?[23] I do not\nprofess to support this conjecture; but it is certain that such mistakes\nmay and do occur. Some critics have supposed that the Athenians imagined\nANASTASIS (\"Resurrection\") to be a new goddess, in whose cause Paul was\npreaching. Would it have been thought anything incredible if we had been\ntold that the ancient Persians, who had no idea of any but a monarchical\ngovernment, had supposed Aristocratia to be a queen of Sparta? But we\nneed not confine ourselves to hypothetical cases; it is positively\nstated that the Hindoos at this day believe \"the honourable East India\nCompany\" to be a venerable old lady of high dignity, residing in this\ncountry. The Germans, again, of the present day derive their name from a\nsimilar mistake: the first tribe of them who invaded Gaul[24] assumed\nthe honourable title of \"_Ger-man_\" which signifies \"warriors,\" (the\nwords \"war\" and \"guerre,\" as well as \"man,\" which remains in our\nlanguage unaltered, are evidently derived from the Teutonic,) and the\nGauls applied this as a _name_ to the whole _race_.\n\nHowever, I merely throw out these conjectures without by any means\ncontending that more plausible ones might not be suggested. But\nwhatever supposition we adopt, or whether we adopt any, the objections\nto the commonly received accounts will remain in their full force, and\nimperiously demand the attention of the candid sceptic.\n\nI call upon those, therefore, who profess themselves advocates of free\ninquiry--who disdain to be carried along with the stream of popular\nopinion, and who will listen to no testimony that runs counter to\nexperience,--to follow up their own principles fairly and\nconsistently. Let the same mode of argument be adopted in all cases\nalike; and then it can no longer be attributed to hostile prejudice,\nbut to enlarged and philosophical views. If they have already rejected\nsome histories, on the ground of their being strange and\nmarvellous,--of their relating facts, unprecedented, and at variance\nwith the established course of nature,--let them not give credit to\nanother history which lies open to the very same objections,--the\nextraordinary and romantic tale we have been just considering. If they\nhave discredited the testimony of witnesses, who are _said_ at least\nto have been disinterested, and to have braved persecutions and death\nin support of their assertions,--can these philosophers consistently\nlisten to and believe the testimony of those who avowedly _get money_\nby the tales they publish, and who do not even pretend that they incur\nany serious risk in case of being detected in a falsehood? If, in\nother cases, they have refused to listen to an account which has\npassed through many intermediate hands before it reaches them, and\nwhich is defended by those who have an interest in maintaining it; let\nthem consider through how many, and what very suspicious hands, _this_\nstory has arrived to them, without the possibility, as I have shown,\nof tracing it back to any decidedly authentic source, after all;--to\nany better authority, according to their own showing, than that of an\n_unnamed_ and unknown foreign correspondent;--and likewise how strong\nan interest, in every way, those who have hitherto imposed on them,\nhave in keeping up the imposture. Let them, in short, show themselves\nas ready to detect the cheats, and despise the fables of politicians\nas of priests.\n\nBut if they are still wedded to the popular belief in this point, let\nthem be consistent enough to admit the same evidence in _other_ cases\nwhich they yield to in _this_. If, after all that has been said, they\ncannot bring themselves to doubt of the existence of Napoleon\nBuonaparte, they must at least acknowledge that they do not apply to\nthat question the same plan of reasoning which they have made use of\nin others; and they are consequently bound in reason and in honesty to\nrenounce it altogether.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[3] \"A report is spread, (says Voltaire in one of his works,) that\nthere is, in some country or other, a giant as big as a mountain; and\nmen presently fall to hot disputing concerning the precise length of\nhis nose, the breadth of his thumb, and other particulars, and\nanathematize each other for heterodoxy of belief concerning them. In\nthe midst of all, if some bold sceptic ventures to hint a doubt as to\nthe existence of this giant, all are ready to join against him, and\ntear him to pieces.\" This looks almost like a prophetic allegory\nrelating to the gigantic Napoleon.\n\n[4] {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH\nDASIA AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nOMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA\nWITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nOMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nTAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH\nPERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nPI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nIOTA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER ETA WITH DASIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nETA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER ETA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nEPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nKAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH\nVARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nPI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nTAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nEPSILON WITH DASIA AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nMU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER ALPHA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nEPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nOMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}. Thucyd. b.i.c. 20.\n\n[5] \"With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travellers\nreceived, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations\nof wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners!\"--_Hume's\nEssay on Miracles_, p. 179, 12mo; p. 185, 8vo, 1767; p. 117, 8vo,\n1817.\n\nN.B.--In order to give every possible facility of reference, three\neditions of Hume's Essays have been generally employed: a 12mo,\nLondon, 1756, and two 8vo editions.\n\n[6] \"Suppose a fact to be transmitted through twenty persons; the\nfirst communicating it to the second, the second to the third, &c.,\nand let the probability of each testimony be expressed by nine-tenths,\n(that is, suppose that of ten reports made by each witness, nine only\nare true,) then, at every time the story passes from one witness to\nanother, the evidence is reduced to nine-tenths of what it was before.\nThus, after it has passed through the whole twenty, the evidence will\nbe found to be less than one-eighth.\"--LA PLACE, _Essai Philosophique\nsur les Probabilites_.\n\nThat is, the chances for the fact thus attested being true, will be,\naccording to this distinguished calculator, less than one in eight.\nVery few of the common newspaper-stories, however, relating to foreign\ncountries, could be traced, if the matter were carefully investigated,\nup to an actual eye-witness, even through twenty intermediate\nwitnesses; and many of the steps of our ladder, would, I fear, prove\nbut rotten; few of the reporters would deserve to have _one in ten_\nfixed as the proportion of their false accounts.\n\n[7] \"I did not mention the difficulty of detecting a falsehood in any\nprivate or even public history, at the time and place where it is said\nto happen; much more where the scene is removed to ever so small a\ndistance.... But the matter never comes to any issue, if trusted to the\ncommon method of altercation and debate and flying rumours.\"--_Hume's\nEssay on Miracles_, p. 195, 12mo; pp. 200, 201, 8vo, 1767; p. 127, 8vo,\n1817.\n\n[8] See the third Postscript appended to this edition.\n\n[9] \"We entertain a suspicion concerning any matter of fact, when the\nwitnesses _contradict_ each other; when they are of a _suspicious_\ncharacter; when they have an _interest_ in what they affirm.\"--_Hume's\nEssay on Miracles_, p. 172, 12mo; p. 176, 8vo, 1767; p. 113, 8vo.\n1817.\n\n[10] \"That testimony itself derives all its force from experience,\nseems very certain.... The first author, we believe, who stated fairly\nthe connexion between the evidence of testimony and the evidence of\nexperience, was HUME, in his Essay on Miracles, a work ... abounding\nin maxims of great use in the conduct of life.\"--_Edin. Review_, Sept.\n1814, p. 328.\n\n[11] \"Suppose, for instance, that the fact which the testimony\nendeavours to establish partakes of the extraordinary and the\nmarvellous; in that case, the evidence resulting from the testimony\nreceives a diminution, greater or less in proportion as the fact is\nmore or less unusual.\"--_Hume's Essay on Miracles_, p. 173, 12mo; p.\n176, 8vo, 1767; p. 113, 8vo, 1817.\n\n[12] \"The ultimate standard by which we determine all disputes that\nmay arise is always derived from experience and observation.\"--_Hume's\nEssay on Miracles_, p. 172, 12mo; p. 175, 8vo, 1767; p. 112, 8vo,\n1817.\n\n[13] {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ETA WITH PSILI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nTHETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH\nOXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nPI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}. {~GREEK\nCAPITAL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nIOTA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nOMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nTAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nOMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH\nPERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL\nSIGMA~} {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER UPSILON WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL\nLETTER PI~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER RHO~}\n{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK\nCAPITAL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER\nLAMDA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK\nCAPITAL LETTER ETA~} {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL\nLETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER\nOMICRON~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER\nDELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nDELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PSI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH\nOXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK CAPITAL\nLETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER XI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH\nPERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nOMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}. PIND. Olymp. 1\n\n[14] This doctrine, though hardly needing confirmation from authority,\nis supported by that of Hume; his eighth essay is, throughout, an\nargument for the doctrine of \"Philosophical necessity,\" drawn entirely\nfrom the general uniformity, observable in the course of nature with\nrespect to the principles of _human conduct_, as well as those of the\nmaterial universe; from which uniformity, he observes, it is that we\nare enabled _in both cases_, to form our judgment by means of\n_Experience:_ \"and if,\" says he, \"we would explode any forgery in\nhistory, we cannot make use of a more convincing argument, than to\nprove that the actions ascribed to any person, are directly contrary\nto the course of nature....\n\n\"... The Veracity of Quintus Curtius is as suspicious when he\ndescribes the supernatural courage of Alexander, by which he was\nhurried on singly to attack multitudes, as when he describes his\nsupernatural force and activity, by which he was able to resist them.\nSo readily and universally do we acknowledge a _uniformity in human\nmotives and actions, as well as in the operations of body_.\"--_Eighth\nEssay_, p. 131, 12mo; p. 85, 8vo, 1817.\n\nAccordingly, in the tenth essay, his use of the term \"miracle,\" after\nhaving called it \"a transgression of a law of nature,\" plainly shows\nthat he meant to include _human_ nature: \"no testimony,\" says he, \"is\nsufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a\nnature that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which\nit endeavours to establish.\" The term \"prodigy\" also (which he all\nalong employs as synonymous with \"miracle\") is applied to testimony, in\nthe same manner, immediately after; \"In the foregoing reasoning we have\nsupposed ... that the falsehood of that testimony would be a kind of\n_prodigy_.\" Now had he meant to confine the meaning of \"miracle,\" and\n\"prodigy,\" to a violation of the laws of _matter_, the epithet\n\"_miraculous_,\" applied even thus hypothetically, to _false testimony_,\nwould be as unmeaning as the epithets \"green\" or \"square;\" the only\npossible sense in which we can apply to it, even in imagination, the\nterm \"miraculous,\" is that of \"highly improbable,\"--\"contrary to those\nlaws of nature which respect human conduct:\" and in this sense he\naccordingly uses the word in the very next sentence: \"When any one\ntells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately\nconsider with myself whether it be more _probable_ that this person\nshould either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact which he relates\nshould really have happened. I weigh the one _miracle_ against the\nother.\"--_Hume's Essay on Miracles_, pp. 176, 177, 12mo; p. 182, 8vo,\n1767; p. 115, 8vo, 1817.\n\nSee also a passage above quoted from the same essay, where he speaks\nof \"the _miraculous_ accounts of travellers;\" evidently using the word\nin this sense.\n\nPerhaps it was superfluous to cite authority for applying the term\n\"miracle\" to whatever is \"highly improbable;\" but it is important to\nthe students of Hume, to be fully aware that he uses those two\nexpressions as synonymous; since otherwise they would mistake the\nmeaning of that passage which he justly calls \"a general maxim worthy\nof your attention.\"\n\n[15] \"Events may be so extraordinary that they can hardly be\nestablished by testimony. We would not give credit to a man who would\naffirm that he saw a hundred dice thrown in the air, and that they all\nfell on the same faces.\"--_Edin. Review_, Sept. 1814, p. 327.\n\nLet it be observed, that the instance here given is _miraculous_ in no\nother sense but that of being highly _improbable_.\n\n[16] \"If the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder,\nthere is an end of common sense; and human testimony in these\ncircumstances loses all pretensions to authority.\"--_Hume's Essay on\nMiracles_, p. 179, 12mo; p. 185, 8vo, 1767; p. 117, 8vo, 1817.\n\n[17] The supposed history from which the above extracts are given, is\npublished entire in the work called _Historic Certainties._\n\n[18] \"I desire any one to lay his hand upon his heart, and after\nserious consideration declare whether he thinks that the falsehood of\nsuch a book, supported by such testimony, would be more extraordinary\nand miraculous than all the miracles it relates.\"--_Hume's Essay on\nMiracles_, p. 200, 12mo; p. 206, 8vo, 1767; p. 131, 8vo, 1817.\n\nLet it be borne in mind that Hume (as I have above remarked)\ncontinually employs the term \"miracle\" and \"prodigy\" to signify\nanything that is highly _improbable_ and _extraordinary._\n\n[19] \"The wise lend a very academic faith to every report which\nfavours the passion of the reporter, whether it magnifies his\n_country_, his family, or himself.\"--_Hume's Essay on Miracles_, p.\n144, 12mo; p. 200, 8vo, 1767; p. 126, 8vo, 1817.\n\n[20] \"Nothing can be more contrary than such a philosophy (the\nacademic or sceptical) to the supine indolence of the mind, its rash\narrogance, its lofty pretensions, and its superstitious\ncredulity.\"--_Fifth Essay_, p. 68, 12mo; p. 41, 8vo, 1817.\n\n[21] See _Hume's Essay on Miracles_, pp. 189, 191, 195, 12mo; pp. 193,\n197, 201, 202, 8vo, 1767; pp. 124, 125, 126, 8vo, 1817.\n\n[22] See _Edinburgh Review_ for October, 1842, p. 162.\n\n[23] It is well know with how much learning and ingenuity the\nRationalists of the German school have laboured to throw discredit on\nthe literal interpretation of the narratives, both of the Old and the\nNew Testaments; representing them as MYTHS, i.e., fables allegorically\ndescribing some physical or moral phaenomena--philosophical\nprinciples--systems, &c.--under the figure of actions performed by\ncertain ideal personages; these allegories having been, afterwards,\nthrough the mistake of the vulgar, believed as history. Thus, the real\nhistorical existence of such a person as the supposed founder of the\nChristian religion, and the acts attributed to him, are denied in the\nliteral sense, and the whole of the evangelical history is explained\non the \"mythical\" theory.\n\nNow it is a remarkable circumstance in reference to the point at\npresent before us, that an eminent authoress of this century has\ndistinctly declared that Napoleon Buonaparte was NOT A MAN, but a\nSYSTEM.\n\n[24] Germaniae vocabulum recens et nuper additum; quoniam qui primi\nRhenum transgressi Gallos expulerint, ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani\nvocati sint: ita nationis nomen in nomen gentis evaluisse paullatim,\nut omnes, primum a victore ob metum, mox a seipsis invento nomine,\nGermani vocarentur.--_Tacitus, de Mor. Germ._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT TO THE THIRD EDITION.\n\n\nIt may seem arrogant for an obscure and nameless individual to claim\nthe glory of having put to death the most formidable of all recorded\nheroes. But a shadowy champion may be overthrown by a shadowy\nantagonist. Many a terrific spectre has been laid by the beams of a\nhalfpenny candle. And if I have succeeded in making out, in the\nforegoing pages, a probable case of suspicion, it must, I think, be\nadmitted, that there is some ground for my present boast, of having\n_killed_ Napoleon Buonaparte.\n\nLet but the circumstances of the case be considered. This mighty\nEmperor, who had been so long the bugbear of the civilized world,\nafter having obtained successes and undergone reverses, such as never\nbefel any (other at least) _real_ potentate, was at length sentenced\nto confinement in the remote island of St. Helena: a measure which\nmany persons wondered at, and many objected to, on various grounds;\nnot unreasonably, supposing the illustrious exile to be a real person;\nbut on the supposition of his being only a man of straw, the\nsituation was exceedingly favourable for keeping him out of the way of\nimpertinent curiosity, when not wanted, and for making him the\nfoundation of any new plots that there might be occasion to conjure\nup.\n\nAbout this juncture it was that the public attention was first\ninvited, by these pages, to the question as to the real existence of\nNapoleon Buonaparte. They excited, it may be fairly supposed, along\nwith much surprise and much censure, some degree of doubt, and\nprobably of consequent inquiry. No fresh evidence, as far as I can\nlearn, of the truth of the disputed points, was brought forward to\ndispel these doubts. We heard, however, of the most jealous\nprecautions being used to prevent any intercourse between the\nformidable prisoner, and any stranger who, from motives of curiosity,\nmight wish to visit him. The \"man in the iron mask\" could hardly have\nbeen more rigorously secluded: and we also heard various contradictory\nreports of conversations between him and the few who were allowed\naccess to him; the falsehood and inconsistency of most of these\nreports being proved in contemporary publications.\n\nAt length, just about the time when the public scepticism respecting\nthis extraordinary personage might be supposed to have risen to an\nalarming height, it was announced to us that he was dead! A stop was\nthus put, most opportunely, to all troublesome inquiries. I do not\nundertake to deny that such a person did live and die. That he was,\nand that he did, _everything_ that is reported, we cannot believe,\nunless we consent to admit contradictory statements; but many of the\nevents reported, however marvellous, are certainly not, when taken\nseparately, physically impossible. But I would only entreat the candid\nreader to reflect what might naturally be expected, on the supposition\nof the surmises contained in the present work being well founded.\nSupposing the whole of the tale I have been considering to have been a\nfabrication, what would be the natural result of such attempt to\nexcite inquiry into its truth? Evidently the shortest and most\neffectual mode of avoiding detection, would be to _kill_ the phantom,\nand so get rid of him at once. A ready and decisive answer would thus\nbe provided to any one in whom the foregoing arguments might have\nexcited suspicions: \"Sir, there can be no doubt that such a person\nexisted, and performed what is related of him; and if you will just\ntake a voyage to St. Helena, you may see with your own eyes,--not him,\nindeed, for he is no longer living,--but his _tomb_: and what evidence\nwould you have that is more decisive?\"\n\nSo much for his _Death_: as for his _Life_,--it is just published by\nan eminent writer: besides which, the shops will supply us with\nabundance of busts and prints of this great man; all striking\nlikenesses--of one another. The most incredulous must be satisfied\nwith this! \"Stat magni NOMINIS umbra!\"\n\nKONX OMPAX.\n\n\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT TO THE SEVENTH EDITION.\n\n\nSince the publication of the Sixth Edition of this work, the French\nnation, and the world at large, have obtained an additional evidence, to\nwhich I hope they will attach as much weight as it deserves, of the\nreality of the wonderful history I have been treating of. The Great\nNation, among the many indications lately given of an heroic zeal like\nwhat Homer attributes to his Argive warriors, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nTAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nSIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nIOTA~} {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER\nLAMDA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER\nNU~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER SIGMA~} {~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nMU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL\nLETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nEPSILON~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK\nSMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH\nOXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER\nTAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}, have formed and executed the design\nof bringing home for honourable interment the remains of their\nillustrious Chief.\n\nHow many persons have actually inspected these relics, I have not\nascertained; but that a real coffin, containing real bones, was\nbrought from St. Helena to France, I see no reason to disbelieve.\n\nWhether future visitors to St. Helena will be shown merely the\nidentical _place_ in which Buonaparte was (_said_ to have been)\ninterred, or whether another set of real bones will be exhibited in\nthat island, we have yet to learn.\n\nThis latter supposition is not very improbable. It was something of a\ncredit to the island, an attraction to strangers, and a source of\nprofit to some of the inhabitants, to possess so remarkable a relic;\nand this glory and advantage they must naturally wish to retain. If\nso, there seems no reason why they should not have a Buonaparte of\ntheir own; for there is, I believe, no doubt that there are, or were,\nseveral Museums in England, which, among other curiosities, boasted,\neach, of a genuine skull of Oliver Cromwell.\n\nPerhaps, therefore, we shall hear of several well authenticated skulls\nof Buonaparte also, in the collections of different virtuosos, all of\nwhom (especially those in whose own crania the \"organ of wonder\" is\nthe most largely developed) will doubtless derive equal satisfaction\nfrom the relics they respectively possess.\n\n\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT TO THE NINTH EDITION.\n\n\nThe Public has been of late much interested and not a little\nbewildered, by the accounts of many strange events, said to have\nrecently taken place in France and other parts of the Continent. Are\nthese accounts of such a character as to allay, or to strengthen and\nincrease, such doubts as have been suggested in the foregoing pages?\n\nWe are told that there is now a Napoleon Buonaparte at the head of the\ngovernment of France. It is not, indeed, asserted that he is the very\noriginal Napoleon Buonaparte himself. The death of that personage, and\nthe transportation of his genuine bones to France, had been too widely\nproclaimed to allow of his reappearance in his own proper person. But\n\"uno avulso, non deficit alter.\" Like the Thibetian worshippers of the\nDalai Lama, (who never dies; only his soul transmigrates into a fresh\nbody), the French are so resolved, we are told, to be under a\nBuonaparte--whether that be (see note to p. 56) a man or \"a\nsystem\"--that they have found, it seems, a kind of new incarnation of\nthis their Grand Lama, in a person said to be the nephew of the\noriginal one.\n\nAnd when, on hearing that this personage now fills the high office of\nPresident of the French Republic, we inquire (very naturally) _how he\ncame there_, we are informed that, several years ago, he invaded\nFrance in an English vessel, (the _English_--as was observed in p.\n52--having always been suspected of keeping Buonaparte ready, like the\nwinds in a Lapland witch's bag, to be let out on occasion,) at the\nhead of a force, not, of six hundred men, like his supposed uncle in\nhis expedition from Elba, but of fifty-five,(!) with which he landed\nat Boulogne, proclaimed himself emperor, and was joined by no less\nthan _one_ man! He was accordingly, we are told, arrested, brought to\ntrial, and sentenced to imprisonment; but having, some years after,\nescaped from prison, and taken refuge in England, (_England_ again!)\nhe thence returned to France: AND SO the French nation placed\nhim at the head of the government!\n\nAll this will doubtless be received as a very probable tale by those\nwho have given full credit to all the stories I have alluded to in the\nforegoing pages.\n\n\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT TO THE ELEVENTH EDITION.\n\n\nWhen any dramatic piece _takes_--as the phrase is--with the Public, it\nwill usually be represented again and again with still-continued\napplause; and sometimes imitations of it will be produced; so that the\nsame drama in substance will, with occasional slight variations in the\nplot, and changes of names, long keep possession of the stage.\n\nSomething like this has taken place with respect to that curious\ntragi-comedy--the scene of it laid in France--which has engaged the\nattention of the British public for about sixty years; during which it\nhas been \"exhibited to crowded houses\"--viz., coffee-houses,\nreading-rooms, &c., with unabated interest.\n\nThe outline of this drama, or series of dramas, may be thus sketched:\n\n_Dramatis Personae._\n\nA. A King or other Sovereign.\n\nB. His Queen.\n\nC. The Heir apparent.\n\nD. E. F. His Ministers.\n\nG. H. I. J. K. Demagogues.\n\nL. A popular leader of superior ingenuity, who becomes ultimately\nsupreme ruler under the title of Dictator, Consul, Emperor, King,\nPresident, or some other.\n\nSoldiers, Senators, Executioners, and other functionaries, Citizens,\nFishwomen, &c.\n\n_Scene_, Paris.\n\n(1.) The first Act of one of these dramas represents a monarchy,\nsomewhat troubled by murmurs of disaffection, suspicions of\nconspiracy, &c.\n\n(2.) Second Act, a rebellion; in which ultimately the government is\noverthrown.\n\n(3.) Act the third, a provisional government established, on\nprinciples of liberty, equality, fraternity, &c.\n\n(4.) Act the fourth, struggles of various parties for power, carried\non with sundry intrigues, and sanguinary conflicts.\n\n(5.) Act the fifth, the re-establishment of some form of absolute\nmonarchy.\n\nAnd from this point we start afresh, and begin the same business over\nagain, with sundry fresh interludes.\n\nAll this is highly amusing to the English Public to _hear_ and _read_\nof; but I doubt whether our countrymen would like to be actual\n_performers_ in such a drama.\n\nWhether the French really are so, or whether they are mystifying us in\nthe accounts they send over, I will not presume to decide. But if the\nformer supposition be the true one,--if they have been so long really\nacting over and over again in their own persons such a drama, it must\nbe allowed that they deserve to be characterized as they have been in\nthe description given of certain European nations: \"An Englishman,\" it\nhas been said, \"is never happy but when he is miserable; a Scotchman\nis never at home but when he is abroad; an Irishman is never at peace\nbut when he is fighting; a Spaniard is never at liberty but when he is\nenslaved; and a Frenchman is never settled but when he is engaged in a\nrevolution.\"\n\n\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT TO THE TWELFTH EDITION.\n\n\n\"Time\" says the proverb, \"rings Truth to light.\" But the process is\ngradual and slow. The debt is paid, as it were, by instalments. It is\nonly bit by bit, and at considerable intervals, that Truth comes forth\nas the morning twilight to dispel the mists of fiction.\n\nIt is above forty years that men have been debating the question:--Who\nwere the parties that burned the city of Moscow?--without ever\nthinking of the preliminary question, whether it ever was burnt at\nall. And now at length we learn that it never was.\n\nThe following extract from a New Orleans paper contains the\ninformation obtained by an American traveller--one of that great\nnation whose accuracy as to facts is so well known--who visited the\nspot.\n\n\n  INCIDENTS OF TRAVEL--CITY OF MOSCOW.\n\n  Senator Douglas is said to have made the discovery, while\n  travelling in Russia, that the city of Moscow was never burned!\n  The following statement of the matter is from the Muscatine\n  (Iowa) Inquirer:\n\n  \"Coming on the boat, a few days ago, we happened to fall in\n  company with Senator Douglas, who came on board at Quincy, on his\n  way to Warsaw. In the course of a very interesting account of his\n  travels in Russia, much of which has been published by\n  letter-writers, he stated a fact which has never yet been\n  published, but which startlingly contradicts the historical\n  relation of one of the most extraordinary events that ever fell\n  to the lot of history to record. For this reason the Judge said\n  he felt a delicacy in making the assertion, that the city of\n  Moscow was never burned!\n\n  \"He said, that previous to his arrival at Moscow, he had several\n  disputes with his guide as to the burning of the city, the guide\n  declaring that it never occurred, and seeming to be nettled at\n  Mr. Douglas's persistency in his opinion; but, on examining the\n  fire-marks around the city, and the city itself, he became\n  satisfied that the guide was correct.\n\n  \"The statement goes on to set forth that the antiquity of the\n  architectural city--particularly of its 'six hundred first-class\n  churches,' stretching through ante-Napoleonic ages to Pagan\n  times, and showing the handiwork of different nations of\n  History--demonstrates that the city never was burned down (or\n  up).\"\n\n  The Inquirer adds:\n\n  \"The Kremlin is a space of several hundred acres, in the heart of\n  the city, in the shape of a flat iron, and is enclosed, by a wall\n  of sixty feet high. Within this enclosure is the most magnificent\n  palace in Europe, recently built, but constructed over an ancient\n  palace, which remains, thus enclosed, whole and perfect, with all\n  its windows, &c.\n\n  \"Near the Kremlin, surrounded by a wall, is a Chinese town,\n  appearing to be several hundred years old, still occupied by\n  descendants of the original settlers.\n\n  \"The circumstances which gave rise to the errors concerning the\n  burning of Moscow, were these:--It is a city of four hundred and\n  fifty thousand inhabitants, in circular form, occupying a large\n  space, five miles across. There the winters are six months long,\n  and the custom was, and still is, to lay up supplies of\n  provisions and wood to last six months of severe cold weather. To\n  prevent these gigantic supplies from encumbering the heart of the\n  city, and yet render them as convenient as practicable to every\n  locality, a row of wood houses was constructed to circle\n  completely round the city, and outside of these was a row of\n  granaries, and in these were deposited the whole of the supplies.\n  Napoleon had entered the city with his army, and was himself\n  occupying the palace of the Kremlin, when, one night, by order of\n  the Russian governor, every wood house and every granary\n  simultaneously burst into a blaze. All efforts to extinguish them\n  were vain, and Napoleon found himself compelled to march his army\n  through the fire. Retiring to an eminence he saw the whole city\n  enveloped in vast sheets of flame, and clouds of smoke, and\n  apparently all on fire. And far as he was concerned it might as\n  well have been, for though houses enough were left to supply\n  every soldier with a room, yet without provisions or fuel, and a\n  Russian army to cut off supplies, he and his army could not\n  subsist there. During the fire some houses were probably burnt,\n  but the city was not. In the Kremlin a magazine blew up, cracking\n  the church of Ivan more than a hundred feet up, but setting\n  nothing on fire.\n\n  \"Mr. Douglas saw the fire-marks around the city, where wood\n  houses and granaries for winter supplies now stand as of old; but\n  there appears no marks of conflagration within the city.\"\n\nAny wary sceptic, indeed, might have found much ground for doubt in\nthe very accounts themselves that were given of the conflagration.\nFor, the Russians have always denied that _they_ burned it; and the\nFrench equally disclaimed the act. Each of the two parties between\nwhom the accusation lay, strenuously denied it. And it must be\nacknowledged that each had very strong presumptions of innocence to\nurge. It was certainly most _unlikely_ that the Russians should\nthemselves destroy their ancient and venerable capital; and that, too,\nwhen they were boasting of having just gained a great victory at\nBorodino over an army which, therefore, they might hope to defeat\nagain, and to drive out of their city. And it was no less unlikely\nthat the French should burn down a city of which they had possession,\nand which afforded shelter and refreshment to their troops. This would\nhave been one of the most improbable circumstances of that most\nimprobable (supposed) campaign. To add to the marvel, we are told that\nthe French army nevertheless waited for five weeks, without any\nobject, amid the ashes of this destroyed city, just at the approach,\nof winter, and as if on purpose to be overtaken and destroyed by snows\nand frost!\n\nHowever, all the difficulties of the question whether any of these\nthings took place at all, were by most persons overlooked, because\nthe question itself never occurred to them, in their eagerness to\ndecide _who_ it was that burned the city. And at length it comes out\nthat the answer is, NOBODY!\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT.\n\n\nWith respect to the foregoing arguments, it has been asserted (though\nwithout even any attempt at proof) that they go to prove that the\nBible-narratives contain nothing more miraculous than the received\naccounts of Napoleon Buonaparte. And this is indeed true, if we use\nthe word \"_miraculous_\" in the very unusual sense in which Hume (as is\npointed out in the foregoing pages) has employed it; to signify simply\n\"_improbable_;\" an abuse of language on which his argument mainly\ndepends.\n\nIt is indeed shown, that there are at least as many and as great\n_improbabilities_ in the history of Buonaparte as in any of the\nScripture-narratives; and that as plausible objections,--if not more\nso,--may be brought against the one history as the other.\n\nBut taking words in their ordinary, established sense, the assertion\nis manifestly the opposite of the truth. For, any one who does,--in\nspite of all the improbabilities,--_believe_ the truth of _both_\nhistories, is, evidently, a believer in miracles; since he believes\ntwo narratives, one of which is _not_ miraculous, while the other is.\nThe history of Buonaparte contains--though much that is very\nimprobable--nothing that is to be called, according to the established\nuse of language, miraculous. And the Scriptures contain, as an\n_essential_ part of their narrative, _Miracles_, properly so called.\n\nTo talk of believing the Bible, all _except the Miracles_, would be\nlike professing to believe the accounts of Buonaparte, _except_ only\nhis commanding armies, and having been at Elba and at Saint Helena.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne cannot doubt that in the course of the _forty years_ that this\nlittle Work has been before the Public, some real, valid refutation of\nthe argument would have been adduced, if any such could have been\ndevised.\n\n1860.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *","title":"Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":17001}