BOOKS.

THE NAPOLEON OF TAINE.*

IT has happened to most of the great actors on the world's stage that their posthumous fame has undergone many vicissi- tudes. Laudatur ab his, culpatur ab illis. They have at -times been eulogized or depreciated by partisan historians -who have searched eagerly the records of the past with a view to eliciting facts and arguments to support the political views they have severally entertained as regards-the present. Even

-when no such incentive has existed, the temptation to adopt -a novel view of some celebrated man or woman whose character and career have floated down the tide of history cast in a con- ventional mould has occasionally proved highly attractive from a mere literary point of view. The process of white- washing the bad characters of history may almost be said to have established itself as a fashion.

A similar fate has attended the historians who have recorded the deeds of the world's principal actors. A few cases, of -which perhaps Ranke is the most conspicuous, may indeed be cited of historical writers whose reputations are built on foundations so solid and so impervious to attack as to defy criticism. But it has more usually happened, as in the case -Ed .Macaulay, that eminent historians have passed through -various phases of repute. The accuracy of their facts, the justice of their conclusions, their powers of correct generaliza- tion, and the merits or demerits of their literary style have all been brought into court, with the result that attention has often been to a great extent diverted from history to the personality of the historians, and that the verdict pronounced has varied according to the special qualities the display of • svhich were for the time being uppermost in the public mind. No recent writer of history has experienced these vicissitudes

to a greater extent than the illustrious author of Les Origines 4e la France Contemporaine. That Tame should evoke the onththsiasin of any particular school of politicians, and still less the partisans of any particular regime in France, was

from the very outset obviously impossible. When we read his

account of the Ancien .Regime we think we are listening to the voice of a calm but convinced republican or constitu- tionalist. When we note his scathing exposure of the criminal folly and ineptitude of the Jacobins we remain momentarily under the impression that we are being guided by a writer

imbued with strong conservative or even monarchical • sympathies. The iconoclast both of the revolutionary and - of the Napoleonic legends chills alike the heart of the -worshippers at either shrine. A writer who announces in the preface of his work that the only conclusion at which -he is able to arrive, after a profound study of the most • interesting and stormy period of modern history, is that the -government of human beings is an extremely difficult task, will look in vain for sympathy from all who have adopted any special theory as to the best way in which that task should be accomplished.. Yet, in spite of Taine's political nihilism, it would be a grave error to suppose that he has no general principle to enounce, or no plan of government to propound. Such is far from being the case. Though no politician, he was a profoundly analytical psychologist. M. Le Bon, in his brilliant treatise on the psychological laws which govern .national development, says, "Dana toutes manifestations de .1a vie d'une nation, nous retrouvons toujours immuable

de la race tissant son propre destin." The commonplace method of stating the same proposition is to say- that every nation gets the government it deserves. This, in fact, is the gospel which Taine had to preach. Ile thought, in Lady Blennerhassett's words, that it was "the underlying charac- teristics of a people, and not their franchise, which determines their Constitution.".

After having enjoyed for long a high reputation amongst

non-partisan students of revolutionary history, Taine's claim to rank as an historian of the first order has of late been vigorously assailed by a school of writers, of whom M. Aulard is probably the best known and the most distinguished. They impugn his authority, and even go so far as to maintain that his historical testimony is of little or no value. How far is this view justified ? The question is one of real- interest to

Sideli/hfs. By. Lady Blennerhassett. Translated by Edith (labeller. London: Constable and Co. [7s. dd.]

the historical student, whatsoever may be his nationality, and it is perhaps, for more than one reason, of special interest to

Englishmen. In the first place, Taine's method of writing history is eminently calculated to commend itself to English readers. His mind was eminently objective. He avoided those - brilliant and often somewhat specious a priori generalisations-

in which even the best French authors are at times prone to indulge. His process of reasoning was strictly inductive. He only drew conclusions when he had laid an elaborate foundation of facts on which they could be based. The spirit in which be wrote was more Teutonic than Latin. Again, in the absence of any really complete English history of the French Revolu- tion—for Carlyle's rhapsody, in spite of its unquestionable merits, can scarcely be held to supply the want—most English- men have been accustomed to think that, with De Tocqueville and Taine as their guides, they would be able to secure an adequate grasp both of the history of the revolutionary period and of the main political lessons which that history tends to inculcate.

In a very interesting essay published in Lady Blennerhassett's recent work, entitled Sidelights, which has been admirably

translated into English by Mrs. Giilcher, she deals with the subject now under discussion. No one could be more fitted to cope with the task. Lady Blennerhassett's previous con- tributions to literature, her encyclopaedic knowledge of historical facts, and her thorough grasp of the main political, religious, and economic considerations which moved the hearts and influenced the actions of men daring the revolutionary con- vulsion give her a claim, which none will dare to dispute, to speak with authority on this subject. Those who have hereto- foie looked for guidance to Taine will, therefore, rejoice to

note that she is able to vindicate his reputation as an historian. "The six volumes of the Origines," she says, "are, like other

human works, not free from errors and exaggerations, but in all essentials their author has proved himself right, and his singular merit remains."

As the most suitable illustration of Taine's historical methods Lady Blennerhassett selects his study of Napoleon.

That, she thinks, is "the severest test of the author's skill."

Taine did not, like Fournier and others, attempt to write a history of Napoleonic facts. The strategical and tactical genius which enabled Napoleon to sweep across Europe and to crush Austria and Prussia on the fields of Austerlitz and Jena had no attraction for him. He wrote a history of

ideas. True to his own psychological habit of thought, he

endeavoured to "reconstruct the figure of Napoleon on psychological and physiological lines." The justification of this method is to be found in the fact, the truth of which cannot be gainsaid, that a right estimate of the character of Napoleon affords one of the principal keys to the true com- prehension of European history for a period of some twenty stirring years. History, Lord Acton said, "is often made by energetic men steadfastly following ideas, mostly wrong, that determine events." Napoleon is a case in point. "The man in Napoleon explains his work." But what were the ideas of this remarkable man, and were those ideas "mostly wrong " ?

His main idea was certainly to satisfy his personal ambi- tion. "Ma maltresse," he said, " c'est le pouvoir," and in 1811, when, although he knew it not, his star was about to wane, he said to the Bavarian General Wrede, "In three years I shall be master of the universe." He was not deterred by any love of country, for it should never be forgotten that, as Lady Blennerhassett says; " this French Caesar was not a French- man." Whatever patriotic feelings moved in his breast were not French but Corsican. He never even thoroughly mastered

the French language, and his mother spoke not only bad French, but bad Italian. Her natural language, Masson tells us, was the Corsican patois. In order to gratify his ambition, all considerations based on morality were east to the winds. "I am not like any other man," he told Madame de Remusat; "the laws of morality and decorum do not apply to me." Acting on this principle he did not hesitate to plunge the world into a series of wars. Saerit foto Mars impius orbe.

The other fundamental idea which dominated the whole of Napoleon's conduct was based on Voltaire's cynical dictum, " Quand lea hommes s'attroupent, leurs oreilles s'allongent."

He was a total disbeliever in the wisdom or intelligence of corporate bodies. Therefore, as he told Sir Henry Keating at St.-Helena, "lie is necessary always to talk of liberty, equality, juatise, and Aisinterestednesa, and never to grant any liberty whatever.* Low as was his opinion of human intelligence, his estimate of human honesty was still lower. Mr. Leaky, speaking of Napoleon's relations with Madame de Stii.el, says : "A perfectly honest man was the only kind of man he could never understand. Such a man perplexed and baffled his calculations, acting on them as the sign of the cross acts on the machinations of a demon." In his callow youth he had coquetted with ultra-Liberal ideas. He had even written an essay in which he expressed warm admiration for Algernon Sidney as an "enemy to monarchies, princes, and nobles," and added that "there are few kings who have not deserved to be dethroned." These ideas soon vanished. He became the incarnation of ruthless but highly intelligent despotism. The reputation acquired at Marengo gave him the authority which was necessary as a preliminary to decisive action, and albeit, if all accounts are true, he lost his head at the most important crisis of his career and owed success to the firmness of that Sieyes whom he scornfully called an " ideologue " and a " faiseur de constitutions," nevertheless on the 18th Brumaire he was able to make captive a tired nation which pined for peace, and little recited that it was handing over its destinies to the most ardent devotee of the god of war that the world has ever known.

Once seated firmly in his saddle Napoleon proceeded to centralize the whole French administration, and to establish a rigime as despotic as that of any of the hereditary monarchs who had preceded him. But it cats a despotism of a very different type from theirs. Theirs was stupid, and excited the jealousy and hatred of almost every class. His was intelligent and appealed both to the imagination and to the material interests of every individual Frenchman. Theirs was based on privilege ; his on absolute equality. "About Napoleon's throne," Lady Blennerhassett says, "were gathered Girondists and Jacobins, Royalists and Thermidorians, Plebeians and the one-time Knights of the Holy Ghost, Roman Catholics and Voltaireans. Kitchen lads became marshals; Drouet, the postmaster of Varennes, became Under-Secretary of State; Fouche, the torturer and wholesale murderer, a duke ; the Suabiau candidate for the Lutheran Ministry, Reinhard, was appointed an Imperial Ambassador ; Murat, son of an innkeeper, a king."

Death, it has been truly said, is the real measure of great- ness. What now remains of the stupendous fabric erected by Napoleon "Of the work of the Conqueror," Lady Blennerhassett says, "not one stone remains upon another." As regards the internal reconstruction of France, the case is very different. All inquirers are agreed that Napoleon's work endures. Taine said that "the machinery of the year viii." still remains. Mr. Fisher, in his work on Napoleonic States- manship, says that Napoleon "created a bureaucracy more competent, active, and enlightened than any which Europe had seen." Mr. Bodley bears similar testimony. "The whole centralized administration of France, which, in its stability, has survived every political crisis, was the creation of Napoleon and the keystone of his fabric."

Napoleon's administrative creations may, indeed, be criti- cised from many points of view. Notably, it may be said that, if he did not initiate, he stimulated that excessive " fonctionnarisme " which is often regarded as the main defect of the French system. But his creations were adapted to the special character and genius of the nation over which he ruled. His main title-deed to enduring fame is that, for good or evil, he constructed an edifice which, in its main features, has lasted to this day, which shows no signs of decay, and which has exercised a predominant influence on the administration and judicial systems of neighbouring countries. Neither the system itself nor the history of its creation can be thoroughly understood without a correct appreciation of the character and political creed of its founder. It is this consideration which affords an ample justification of the special method adopted by Taine in dealing with the history of the Napoleonic period.

Nothing illustrates Napoleon's character more clearly than the numerous Napoleana which may be culled from the pages of Madame de Remusat, Masson, Beugnot, Roederer, and others. Of these, some are reproduced by Lady Blennerhassett. The writer of the present article was informed on good authority of the following Napoleonic anecdote. It is related that Napoleon ordered from Bregnet, the famous Paris watch- maker, a watch for his brother Joseph, who was at the time King of Spain. The back was of blue enamel decorated with the letter J in diamonds. In 1813, Napoleon was present at a military parade when a mesienger arrived bearing a brief despatch, in which it was stated that the French army had been completely defeated at Vittoria. It was manifest that Spain was lost. Always severely practical, all that Naleon did, after glancing at the despatch, was to turn to his secretary and say, "Write to Breguet and tell him that I shall not want that watch." It is believed that the watch

was eventually bought by the Duke of Wellington. C.