Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

not unmixed with a feeling of deep mysterious awe. The mind cannot seize nor comprehend this boundless grandeur; hence its mysteriousness. The eye cannot see, no sense can, in fact, perceive the connection between the stupendous phenomena on the wide ocean and the fate of man.. To human eyes the surging billows and the towering waves are both raised by an invisible, unknown power, and their depth is peopled with beings uncouth, ungoverned and unknown. The sea is lonely, the sea is dreary, like a wide, watery waste compared with the gay, bright colors of the land, and the might of gigantic waves that rush from age to age against the bulwarks of continent and isle, seems irresistible and able to destroy the world's foundation. Thus the ocean awakens in us feelings of dark mystery and grim power; the Infinite carries us off beyond the limits of familiar thought, and the sea becomes the home of fabled beings and weird images. All sea-shore countries teem with stories, legends and traditions; the fickle sea, the envious ocean, the fierce, hungry waves, the furious breakers, all become the representatives of so many human passions. Our fancy peoples the ocean with sweet, luring sirens, endowed with magic power to weave a spell and to draw the yielding mariner down to the green crystal halls beneath the waves. There sea-kings and morgana fairies live in enchanted palaces; monsters of unheard size and shape flit ghostlike through that

dark, mysterious realm, and huge snakes trail themselves slowly from "their coiled sleep in the central deep, amidst all the dry pied things that lie in the hueless mosses under the sea." The bewildered and astounded mind tries, in his own way, to connect the great phenomena of nature with his fate and the will of the Almighty. It sees in homeless, restless birds the harbingers of the coming storm, in flying fishes the spirits of wrecked seamen, and points to the Flying Dutchman and the Ancient Mariner as illustrations of the justice of God's wrath.

The strong mind, the believing soul, of course, shake off all such idle dreams and vain superstitions. To them the sea is the very source of energy and courage. The life at sea is a life of unceasing strife and struggle. Hence all sea-faring nations are warlike, fond of adventures, and poetical. But the sea's greatest charm is, after all, its freedom. The free, unbounded ocean, where man feels no restraint, sees no narrow limits, where he must rely upon his own stout heart, strong in faith, where he is alone with his great Father in heaven, gives him a sense of his own freedom and strength like no other part of earth, and makes him return to the sea, its perils and sufferings, in spite of all the peace and happiness that the land can afford him. He knows that even if he dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall His hand lead him and His right hand shall hold him.

[blocks in formation]

WAS NAPOLEON A DICTATOR?

NAPOLEON, it may be stated without

venture, is one of those historical magnitudes, which attract the renewed scrutiny, and periodically revived attention of successive ages. Does he also belong to those who present themselves for centuries in different phases, according to the different and characteristic elements which may be at work in the wrestling progress of the race to which they have belonged?

Public men are open to the gaze of all; and people will have their opinions about them. We heard Niebuhr exclaim: "How true! How wise!" when on one of the high roads of Tyrol, we passed a house, over the door of which was painted the distich:

"Wer da bauet un der Strassen,

Muss die Leute reden lassen."*

Nor must we forget the wise saying of Goethe, that it does not require an architect to live in a house.

The greater a name is among those that are stamped as historical, the surer it is to be discussed and examined from various points of view, and to present itself in different lights and hues in the sequel of years. Indeed, may it not be said that, as it is one of the characteristics of a great soul, that it lives within itself the lives of many men; so it is the variety of phases which a name, an epoch, a nation, or an institution, presents to succeeding generations, that constitutes one of the standards of historical greatness? Like great books, new eras find something new in them, and they grow on mankind. Christ became man; as such, the greatest man, and his name presents itself in endless phases to generation after generation. Timour and Attila did vast things for the times, but there is but one unchanging aspect in which they can be viewed. They were nothing but conquerors. Greece is studied with intenser zeal as our race advances, and always with the relish of a newly-discovered subject. Even the middle of the nineteenth century has produced several important and elaborate histories of that brilliant star in history. Portugal had a brilliant period, too; but it is like one flash of light, and there it ends. No successive ages present it in a new aspect. The institutions of the Anglican

race are an inexhaustible theme of reflection, and wou'd be so for all ages to come, even if t.is day the Americans and English were swept from the face of the earth. Russia is a vast empire. Describe it once with accuracy and truth, or, when it will have crumbled into dust, let its rise and fall be carefully chronicled, and all is done that mankind stand in need of, or will care for.

But

Napoleon was a great man. Whether that whole phenomenon comprehended within the one name, Napoleon Bonaparte, will have in future ages the polyphasial character which has just been spoken of, cannot be decided in our times, whatever the anticipations of present historians may be, according to the different bias of their minds. the period is arriving when his history may be written. We are daily receding from his time, and ascending the summit from which the historian may calmly look around. It is not the contemporaries that can write the history of a man or age. They can only accumulate materials. Niebuhr wrote a wiser history of Rome than Livy; Grote, a deeper history of Greece than Thucydides or Herodotus. In the meantime, separate questions are to be answered; distinct subjects belonging to the great theme are gradually to be treated with more and more of that character with which, ultimately, his whole history must be handled. One of these questions isand it is a vital one-was Napoleon a dictator? Did he consciously concentrate immense power, compress freedom of action in France, and conquer the European continent, merely to prepare a nobler and a permanent state of things? Did he sow and plant, or did he merely concentrate power, and, in doing so, destroy the germs of freedom? Did he treat liberty as merely in abeyance, while, nevertheless, he was fostering its germs, or did he induce a state of things, which, in the same degree as he succeeded, extirpated freedom, and which in turn must be undone in the same degree in which liberty would struggle into existence ? The Roman dictator was no annihilator. He received extraordinary, not absolute, power, for a limited period, in times of danger and difficulty, to help the wheels

He who builds where people walk,
Must allow the folk to talk.

of the State through a miry pass, and when the days of his power were over, he was responsible for his stewardship.

The admirers of Napoleon, those that served him, and those who now worship his name, have ever striven to present him in this light. They felt instinctively that this was the only way of reconciling his acts with the great aim of our times. We are well aware that there are two other classes of Napoleonists. There

are those who boldly assert that Napoleon actually ruled France in a liberal spirit, and that freedom really was enjoyed under him; and there are those who, with still greater boldness, maintain that France did not struggle for liberty in her first revolution, nor that she yearns for it now; that all she ever wanted is equality. This opinion was proclaimed at the time when the present emperor of the French was forging a new crown for himself, and new gyves for bleeding France. We have nothing to do with this species of Napoleonists. They are void of the shame of history, or else, not knowing it and its sacred character, they merely write to say something new and startling. leave them and pass on."

"We

The elder brother of Napoleon was not of their opinion. In many of his letters, written from his exile in the United States, he expresses the idea that Napoleon was a dictator-a real lover of liberty, forced by foreign enemies to assume the sole power of the State; a power developed by the wars into which he was driven, to such an extent, that in a measure it overpowered himself. Joseph Bonaparte has repeatedly expressed this idea, especially in an elaborate letter to Count Thibeaudeau, who had stated in his history, that Napoleon had caused France to retrograde in the path of liberty. But we must confess, that the idea of a dictatorship in Napoleon seems not to have been very clear in the mind of that able, benevolent, and otherwise clear-headed and liberal brother of the emperor; for, in the same letter to Count Thibeaudeau, he shows that the dire idea of the "Caesars," successfully revived with its blighting associations, in our own times, was also floating in

the mind of Joseph. He says: "He (the emperor) has succumbed in the struggle. It is impossible to say what he would have done after Actium. I say what I know. Impartial men, who have seen nothing but the internal facts, will say that probably Napoleon would have been as superior to Augustus, as he had been to Octavius; that a man of such a genius, would not have desired anything but what was meet. for the French people; and that, if he were living now,t he would make France as happy by her institutions, as the fortunate country which I inhabit-a country which proves that liberal institutions make nations happy and wise." this very Napoleon used to repeat: Everything for the people, nothing by the people.

[ocr errors]

Yet

That same letter to Count Thibeaudeau contains the remarkable sentence: Napoleon isolated himself much in France; people ended with no longer understanding what he was after."

[ocr errors]

The studious reader will find this letter on page 320, of the tenth volume of the Memoirs and Correspondence, political as well as military, of King Josephthe last volume of which has just appeared in Paris.

Joseph expresses similar views in a letter to Francis Lieber, which follows in the mentioned volume, immediately after that to Count Thibeaudeau. Indeed, he endorsed a copy of the latter in that to the former.

We consider these two letters of great interest, if they are not important in point of historical facts. We shall give the translation of the one to Mr. Lieber, in this paper, feeling assured that its perusal will prove the propriety of inserting it.

When Lieber had resolved to write the Encyclopædia Americana, he wished to turn the presence of Napoleon's brother in this country to good account, with reference to some disputed facts in the great period which had just ended, and regarding which Joseph Bonaparte had it in his power to give him light. He wrote, therefore, at once to Count Survilliers, asking him whether he would allow him occasionally to apply

General Lamarque, in a letter to Joseph, in which he enumerates all the good the latter had done to Naples, has this observation: Unable to establish political liberty, you endeavored to let your subjects enjoy all the benefits of a municipal government (a government of incorporated cities and the self-management of communes), which you considered as the foundation of all institutions." To have seen and done this, is, for a king and Frenchman of that time, and for a brother of Napoleon, more reputable than the gain of a victory. Every statesman will admit that this redounds to the highest honor of Joseph's mind and character.

The letter is dated, Point-Breeze, 19th May, 1829.

to him for information concerning important facts in his own, or his brother's life. The answer was friendly and liberal, and produced a correspondence, of which a number of letters are now in the hands of Lieber. Possibly they may be published. It seems that Joseph retained copies of all his letters; at any rate, a copy of the letter which has been mentioned must have been among the papers of the man, who, twice king, lived among us an esteemed and beloved citizen, full of unpretending and genuine kindness.*

The emperor himself was desirous of having his reign considered as a dictatorship. This was at least the case in his exile, where, as it is well-known, and was natural, he occupied himself much with his name and reputation as they would appear to posterity. On one occasion he observed: Some people have said that I ought to have made myself a French Washington. All that I was allowed to be was a crowned Washington. For me to imitate Washington would have been a niaiserie."

He

meant, undoubtedly, that circumstances did not allow him to be a Washington. This is true; but it is equally true that he could never have been a Washington, whatever the circumstances might have been.

There are no two men in the whole breadth of history more unlike to one another. Washington's fellow star of the binary constellation is William of Nassau, the founder of the Netherlands republic, not Bonaparte, crowned or uncrowned.

Napoleon's and Washington's minds and souls differed no less than their bodies. The one was wholly Anglican, or Teutonic; the other a very type of the Celtic or Iberian. The one great and noble as a calm and persevering man of duty; the other impetuous, and of flashy brilliancy. Washington has ever appeared to us as the historic model of sound common sense, and sterling judgment, coupled with immaculate patriotism. There was nothing brilliant in Washington, unless, indeed, the Fabian

genius of unyielding perseverance in a high career, be called brilliant. Napoleon, on the other hand is, possibly, the most brilliant character of all modern times. Glory was his very idol. Washington was throughout his life a selflimiting man; Napoleon was ever a selfstimulating man. The fever of grandeur consumed him. Washington was obedient to the law, a law-abiding man if ever there was one; Napoleon constantly broke down the law when it appeare necessary to him, and it appeared to him often so. Washington aided in creating a new empire; Napoleon created, or aimed at creating a new state of things. Washington arose out of a struggle of independencc-a severance of colonies from a distant mother-country; Napoleon arose out of a fearful internal revolution. Washington is daily growing in the affection of history, and there is the most remarkable uniformity of opinion regarding his character; there is the greatest difference of opinion regarding Napoleon's, and however many may admire him, no one loves him, except some survivors, who have received acts of personal kindness at his hands. No man ever loves power merely as power. We could not even love God were He only almighty. Washington never persecuted; he imprisoned no opponent, banished no enemy, and when he died his hands were unstained like Pericles'; Napoleon banished, imprisoned, and persecuted, and developed a system of police, which must be called stupendous, on account of its vastness, completeness, perfection, power, and penetrating refinement-a system pressing to this day on France like an Alp, and which makes all that Aristotle writes on the police of usurpers appear as the veriest trash. The Dionysian sycophant was a poor bungler, compared to an agent of the French secret police; and, be it well remembered, this gigantic police system with the gendarmerie, and all the thousand ramifications, is essentially Napoleonic. It was developed in all its stifling grandear under him, and is, unfor

*The writer well remembers with what simplicity Joseph would relate events of his life at the dinner table, often prefacing them with the words: "When I was King of Naples," or "Spain." One day, Mr. an old convention-man, who had left France, where he had been well acquainted with the Bonapartes, when Napoleon made himself consul for life, and had lived ever since in South America, dined at PointBreeze. He called Joseph, Thou, in the old republican style; he spoke freely of Napoleon, and the courtesy of Joseph, sometimes as it seemed to us, fairly tried, appeared most charming. When, that evening, we bade Joseph good night, he said: "un moment," took the candle and showed us to our bed-room. We have often said, and mean it literally, that the two old men, personally most courteous, and putting a visitor most at ease, that we have ever known, were Joseph Bonaparte and General Jackson. It used to be a great enjoyment at Point-Breeze, to walk up and down the room with Joseph Bonaparte, and to hear from him those delightful anecdotes, which are to the philosophic historian or statesman like little delicate touches in a historic picture, or the nicely modulated accents of a great speaker on a great ques

tion.

tunately, more truly his own, than the code which bears his name.

Washington was strictly institutional in his character, and never dreamed of concentration of power. If Satan ever

appeared to him showing him the glory and power of a kingdom on earth, it was buried in his noble breast, and no act or word of his has ever shown even a struggle to beat down the tempter. Napoleon had no instinct for institutional government whatever,* and constantly struck out new paths of brilliancy to make him and his people more glorious. Washington was a citizen, and statesman, a patriot and also a soldier; Napoleon was soldier above all. He acknowledges it, and is proud of it. To be the greatest captain was his greatest glory.

We Americans acknowledge that Washington plainly served his country, to which he bowed as the great thing above him and above all; the greatest admirers of Napoleon say that "soldiers, money, peoples, were in his hands but means to establish un système grandiose." Washington never was a dictator, and never aimed at a dictatorship; Napoleon claims the title to explain or excuse his despotism and centralism. Washington never compared himself to any one; Napoleon compares himself to him. Washington's policy was strictly domestic, and in leaving public life he urges the abstaining from foreign policy as a most essential point in the whole American State-system. Napoleon's policy became from year to year more fo-. reign, until it ended almost exclusively in conquest, and an absolute supremacy of France, to which all else was sacrificed. Washington was a modest man; Napoleon looked upon himself as a sort of Fate. Washington was one of the beginners of the Revolution; Napoleon steps in when the revolution of his country had already developed immense pow

ers and forces. Washington aimed at no elevation of his family, and dies a justice of the peace; Napoleon writes to Joseph: I want a family of kings (il me faut une famille de rois.) Washington divests himself of the chief magistracy, voluntarily and gracefully, leaving to his people a document which after-ages honor like a political gospel; Napoleon, in his last days, is occupied with the idea of family aggrandizement, or with the means by which his house may be prevented from mingling again with common men. During his closing illness he directs General Bertrand to advise,. in his name, the members of his family to settle chiefly in Rome, where their children ought to be married to the princely families of the Colonnas, &c., and where some Bonaparte would not fail to become pope. Jerome and Caroline ought to reside in Switzerland, where, in Berne, they must establish themselves in the Swiss "Oligarchy," and where a landamman-shipt would be certain to fall to the family; and the children of Joseph, should he remain in America, might marry into the great families of the Washingtons and Jeffersons, and Bonaparte would become President of the United States.§ Washington was all that this country at the time required, and no more; he was thus, and remains, a political blessing to our country. Was Napoleon all that France required, and no more? Did the desires of his genius and his personal greatness not present themselves as France to his enormous mind? Even Louis Napoleon has said on his throne that his uncle, it must be owned, had loved war too much.

Both Washington and Napoleon have been men of high action, and some points of similarity undoubtedly exist, but to find them is a work of ingenuity, rather than one that naturally presents itself to an ingenuous mind.

We take the word institution and institutional government in the sense in which it has lately been defined in Lieber's Civil Liberty and Self-Government.

+ Words of the editors of the Memoirs quoted before, and cited here because they only express what thousands say, and what pervades the whole ten volumes of imperial correspondence.

The Landamman of Switzerland is the chief magistrate. The word implies magistrate of the land. This extraordinary communication of the dying emperor to his family, will be found in the 10th volume of the mentioned memoirs, page 264, and sequel. It proves, in addition, how deplorably mistaken Napoleon frequently was on subjects, on which, nevertheless, he formed absolute opinions on which he acted. His opinions on England, her institutions and the facility of her conquest, because the people would rush into his arms, against their own "oligarchy," were frequently no less absurd than his idea of "les Washington et les Jefferson" as familles princières. That there are no families of "the Washingtons and Jeffersons" may be passed over, but who would ever dream of marrying into the family of the Van Burens, Adamses, or Polks in order to increase the chance of some issue, to arrive at the White House? The whole is so chimerical, and built on so utterly unfounded an analogy, with a hastiness and violence, as it were, that it creates a feeling of discomfort to find that so great a man has been capable of harboring so pitiful an idea; a suspicion accompanies this feeling, that if he has erred so egregiously once, he may have been grievously mistaken at other times. Did he know more of the East than of us?

It cannot be said that this extraordinary advice was owing to a failing mind. On the contrary, Bertrand, Montholon, and all the companions of Napoleon at St. Helena state, that his mind remained remarkably clear to the last day, and Bertrand states, that he repeatedly spoke of these family settlements.

« AnteriorContinuar »