Page images

enemy to the Duke of Marlborough. “from assembling at all; for how would They would have given her a place in “these wise lawgivers have the people the ministry, but there was no precedent “ assemble together, if they are not to do for giving an office to one of her sex; “it in a riotous and tumultuous manner? so they introduced her into the cabinet. “For my part, I am at a loss to guess; When the party with whom Mother Gin “but, as this is a law which has been had thus allied herself seemed sure of “proved by the ingenious authors of the final triumph, accidental events over- Craftsman and Fog's Journal to be threw them, and the Whigs came in “ directly contrary to Magna Charta, and with the House of Hanover. The new “in manifest violation of the liberties of government were not unwilling to give “the subject, I entirely fall in with their Mother Gin credit for her political “way of thinking, that little or no regard influence, until the legislature, “grow- "ought to be had to it.” “ing jealous of her power, and being Thus oppressed, Mother Gin appeared “ apprehensive lest she should assume to less frequently in public affairs, except “herself the sole direction of all affairs, at the elections of members to Parlia“ecclesiastical, civil, and military, they ment. She had been a staunch Tory, “passed a very severe and arbitrary law and still preserved her attachment to “[the Riot Act was passed in the first that party; but under the government “year of the reign of George I.] prohibit of the second George she had gradually “ing her followers, to the number of yielded to the tide, and entered the “twelve or more, from assembling in a ranks of the patriots. These, however, “ riotous and tumultuous manner, under knew that she was not cordially with “ the pain of death ; which amounted to them, and this was the reason why they " the same thing as restraining them now sought to destroy her.



THEY have toiled all the night, the long, weary night;

They have toiled all the night, Lord, and taken nothing :
The heavens are as brass, and all flesh seems as grass,

Death strikes with horror and life with loathing.
Walk'st Thou by the waters, the dark silent waters,

The fathomless waters that no line can plumb ?
Art Thou Redeemer, or a mere schemer,

Preaching a kingdom that cannot come ?
Not a word say'st Thou : no wrath betray'st Thou :

Scarcely delay'st Thou their terrors to lull;
On the shore standing, mutely commanding,

"Let down your nets !”—And they draw them up—full !

Jesus, Redeemer-only Redeemer !

I, a poor dreamer, lay hold upon Thee :
Thy will pursuing, though no end viewing,

But simply doing as Thou biddest me.

Though Thee I see not, -either light be not,

Or Thou wilt free not the scales from mine eyes-
I ne'er gainsay Thee, but only obey Thee;

Obedience is better than sacrifice.

Though on my prison gleams no open vision,

Walking Elysian by Galilee's tide,
Unseen, I feel Thee, and death will reveal Thee :

I shall wake in Thy likeness, satisfied.



That all philosophic history is nothing sagacity by remarking with perfect truth but a reproduction of the present under that “after all, we knew very little the garb and nomenclature of the past about the history of early Britain." A is, I think, a theory which might be similar confession might be made with sustained by strong arguments. We advantage about any period removed hear often of writers who are said to from the memory of living men. And, have thrown themselves successfully therefore, to my mind, it is no impeachinto the spirit of a bygone age; but of ment on the last “Life of Cæsar" to say, the justice of such a verdict there are that the Imperial author has failed to and can be by the nature of the case make the era which gave birth to his no judges extant.

hero intelligible to us. Of all nations,

the one least likely to produce a faithful „Was ihr den Geist der Zeiten heißt,

limner of a past period is the French. Das ist im Grund der Herren eigner Geist, It is at once the strength and weakness In dem die Zeiten sich bespiegeln.“

of the Gallic intellect that it is so So Faust declared, even before he had eminently self-contained. With the remet with Mephistopheles ; and, the more presentative Frenchman, all knowledge, men study history, the more, I think, and history, and science are confined they will become sceptical as to the pos- within the limits of France. As far as sibility of ever evoking the past out I could ever discover, the real cause of of your own consciousness. And, there. the exceptional study which Frenchmen fore, holding this faith, or want of faith. have always devoted to the history of I should have been surprised if a man, Rome consists in a belief, whether miswriting at our present era, had been able taken or otherwise, that the great Reto produce anything which seemed even public was in some sense a prototype a life-like representation of that state of of France. No doubt the half Italian men's minds and thoughts and hopes nature of the Buonaparte would cause and fears, nineteen centuries ago, which the Emperor, as it caused his uncle, to rendered the Roman empire first a possi- regard Rome with an almost superstitious bility and then a fact. I once heard of reverence; and traces of this Italian a very young man who, being present at sentiment may be discerned frequently a gathering of great authorities on Anglo- throughout the pages of the “Life of Saxon lore, earned a reputation for Cæsar.” But, both for good and evil,

the essence of this work is French ; it is i We are glad that Mr. Dicey, in this article, should express his own sentiments respect

a book which none but a Frenchman ing the Emperor and his book; but we may

could have written, or possibly, when it find occasion to return to the subject.-Editor was written, could thoroughly appreciate.

Of the merits of this biography as a historical study it is not my purpose to speak. In the first place, the space I have at present at command is inadequate; in the second, this feature of the subject can only be discussed by experts in the matter of Roman history; and, in the third, if a searching criticism were required into the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statements made and the facts propounded, I am not the writer who should be selected for the task. All I desire to do in these brief comments is to point out the illustrations afforded by this remarkable work as to the theory of modern Imperialism. I see that amongst my brother reviewers it is the fashion to regard this book as a simple manifesto in favour of the Napoleonic rule. This theory I believe to be a mistaken one. Amongst men whom action has made famous, no desire is more common than that of achieving a reputation in the world of letters which shall endure beyond the memory of their lives. To be able to say, “ Exegi monumentum ære perennius” is a wish which has agitated the heart of many a man, whose life will be always his best monument. It is impossible to read through this history of the foundation of the Roman Empire without perceiving that its authorintends it to rank as a work of sterling historic value, as a book that will be read even when the Napoleons have vanished as completely as the Cæsars. If the Emperor had designed simply to vindicate his own dynasty under a Latin name, he would have chosen some more direct form of vindication, or, at least, would have treated of some one of the many phases of history which afford a closer parallel to his own era and to the part which he has taken in it. Yet, allowing all this, to his own contemporaries the chief interest of the book will reside in the glimpses afforded by it of the Imperial view of things as they are in our years of grace, not in those which date from the foundation of the eternal city. It will be for a future generation to judge of the work by its intrinsic merits. We, who are reading the writings

of a man who has made history and is still engaged in making it, must perforce look for the light it throws on the present and the future—not for that it casts upon the past. And my wish in this paper is to illustrate the moral to be drawn from those passages where the author obviously thought of France when he wrote of Rome, of the Napoleons when he wrote of the Cæsars.

The parallel between the first Napoleon and the first Cæsar seems to me to be by no means the main feature of what I may call the esoteric lesson of this latest treatise on the history of Rome. The volume just published only brings us to the triumvirate of Pompey, Crassus, and Cæsar; and the last named of the three had then scarcely commenced his attempt to overthrow the liberties of the Republic The real object of these pages is to show that the state of Rome was such that the welfare of the community demanded a change—that the forms of freedom had ceased to represent any substantial benefits, and that a saviour of society was called for urgently. A similar defence is far more applicable to the usurpation of the third Napoleon than of the first. Amongst the countless accusations brought against the founder of the Napoleonic dynasty, the one of having destroyed a stable order of liberty to erect a despotism upon its ruins has never been urged seriously. Moreover it must be admitted fairly that in the eyes of Frenchmen the Great Napoleon needs no justification. It is in England only that Napoleonic worship has never made its way. With this scepticism I find no fault ; but still I could wish that as a nation we had done fuller justice to what was grand and noble in the greatest of our enemies. To any one who has lived much in foreign countries

it matters little in what portion of the civilized world—there is something absolutely astonishing in the tone which even educated Englishmen adopt when speaking of the Emperor who, in the wild words of Victor Hugo, became at last so mighty that “il gênait Dieu !" It was only the other day I saw, in the

pages of the most popular perhaps “ example to the world of a people conof London journals, a caricature of the “stituting itself and growing great by author of the “Life of Cæsar," puffing “liberty, seemed, after Cæsar, to throw out a pigmy puppet of Napoleon I. “ themselves directly into slavery, it is in the vain hope of swelling it to the “ because there existed a general reason dimensions of Cæsar. It seemed to me “ which by fatality prevented the reas if we were still in the days of “public from returning to the purity of Gilray, when our caricaturists depicted : “its ancient institutions ; it is because poor George III. as a giant holding a “the new events and interests of a dwarf in his hand, fashioned after the “ society in labour required other means likeness of the “Corsican adventurer”- “ to satisfy them.” (I am quoting, let as if, like the Bourbons, we had learnt me say once for all, from the English nothing and forgotten nothing. In any version, the best perhaps that could other country, such a picture would be made, though in many cases conhave been self-condemned as ludicrous; veying the meaning of the writer but in most it would have been scouted as inadequately; as, for instance, in this scurrilous. The instinct of great multi- extract, where “fatalement” is transtudes is seldom, I think, wrong. There lated " by fatality.”) was little, one might have thought This passage I take to be the key-note beforehand, to endear the memory of of the history. In ordinary criticism Napoleon to the nations whom he con- the argument thus shadowed forth is quered, and whose kings he deposed; dismissed at once, with the comment but yet, right or wrong, the conqueror that it is mere fatalism. Epithets, howof Jena and Marengo and Moscow ever, are not proofs. The whole theory is to the present hour the idol of of a providential direction of history, popular worship throughout half the so commonly received amongst us, is world. Go where you will, north or south, only fatalism veiled beneath theological east or west, from the shores of the verbiage. No man, I think, who has Black Sea to the banks of the Mississippi ever thought upon the subject at all, -enter any tavern or peasant dwelling- but must have arrived at the conclusion and the chances are that, amidst the that the growth and decay of institumemorials of the country in which you tions, the rise and decline and fall of are a traveller, you will find some rude nations, are regulated by certain laws, likeness of that grand, godlike face, as fixed and as unknown as those which some picture of the scenes where the affect the birth, development, and sus peoples' hero fought and conquered. pension of animal existence. To what We talk of the universality of Garibaldi's extent the operation of these general fame ; it is nothing to that which laws is, or can be, modified by indiNapoleon still enjoys in the memory of vidual action, is a problem which never men, though half a century has passed can be solved till we reconcile the consince the Hundred Days ended on the flicting claims of Omniscience and free field of Waterloo.

will. If fatalism means that everything Thus in as far as the “Life of Cæsar” is regulated by some unalterable cause, is meant as a vindication of the Napo. which can neither be retarded nor acceleleonic rule, it is designed, I conceive, far rated by individual effort, then the writer, more as a vindication of its later deve. whose aim it is to show that the world lopment than of its primary one. How has been redeemed by : single far it succeeds. in this object, or, rather greatness of Cæsars or Napvituns, is what hints it suggests in defence thereof, assuredly not a fatalist. All that is what I desire to call attention to, as is asserted by the words I have fully as I can, in this brief notice. quoted is a belief that when the hour

In the first place the reader is asked is come the man will not be wanting, throughout to assume a certain theory of and that the coming of the hour is in fate. “If the Romans, after giving an itself a vindication of the man's action.


[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

This theory may be disputed, possibly disproved; but it is one entirely different from, if not antagonistic to, that of fatalism.

By far the greater portion, then, of this first instalment of the “Life of Cæsar" is devoted to the endeavour to prove that, in the latter days of the Roman Commonwealth, the hour had come when a saviour of society was wanted. And the manner in which this view is supported is, in itself, a masterpiece of graphic talent. It is possible that the correctness of the author's facts may be questioned, the value of his authorities disputed, and that his picture may be shown to be overcoloured. But, if we take his facts for granted, the use made of them is wonderfully skilful. The very coldness and conciseness of the style add to the effect produced. From the days of the Roman kings to those of the end of the republic, a long panorama is unrolled before us. War follows war, insurrection insurrection, and tumult tumult. We see before us a people with vast energies, high ambitions, and great destinies, agitated by constant disturbance, and the disputes of rival factions—a prey in turns to aristocratic tyranny, and demagogic anarchy, and military violence. A world distracted by the contests for supremacy at Rome; the interest of Italy sacrificed to the local jealousies of the “ Caput orbis terrarum"; the Eternal City itself the scene of constant riot, and confusion, and bloodshed ; a neverending war of classes ; a society demoralized by wealth ; an aristocracy devoid of virtue; a government which retained the form of freedom without the benefits which make freedom valuable; a decaying faith, and a longing for any change, so that it brought peace at home, and order and quiet: these are the main features in the Napoleonic picture of that era which heraided in the advent of Cæsar, when "all the forces of society, " paralysed by intestine divisions, and “powerless for good, appeared to revive “only for the purpose of throwing obsta“cles in its way,” when "military glory "and eloquence, those two instruments

“ of Roman power, inspired only distrust “and envy," when “the triumph of the “generals was regarded not so much as “a success for the republic as a source “ of personal gratification." Is there not, it is intended that some should ask, much in this gloomy portrait which might be applied not inaptly to the condition of France during the period that succeeded the revolution of February, and preceded the “Coup d'État”?

So it came to pass that “Italy demanded a master.” The instincts of democracy, growing more powerful with each succeeding year, taught it that “its interests are better represented by an individual than by a political body;" and the old dread of tyrants, which the senate had hitherto appealed to successfully, in order to crush the true champions of the popular cause, had lost its hold upon the people. The Gracchi, Marius, Sylla, Catiline, might each have founded “what is called the Empire,” had it not been that they each represented factions, not the nation. “ To establish a durable order of things “ there was wanted a man, who, “ raising himself above vulgar passions, “ should unite in himself the essential “ qualities and just ideas of each of his “ predecessors, avoiding their faults as “ well as their errors. To the greatness

of soul and love of the people of cer“ tain tribunes, it was needful to join " the military genius of great generals, "and the strong sentiments of the “ Dictator in favour of order and the “ hierarchy ..... That man was “ Cæsar.” If instead of Cæsar you put Napoleon III. is it not clear that such is the epitaph that the writer would desire to have written of himself by some future historian of the Second Empire? There is no attempt throughout these pages to vindicate the seizure of supreme power by any technical plea or legal subterfuge. The “salus relpublica" is the one argument that the author feels can be safely used in defence either of Cæsars or of Napoleons. “ Laws," we are told, “may be justly « broken when society is hurrying on

« PreviousContinue »