Page images
PDF
EPUB

"to its own ruin, and when the govern66 ment, supported by the mass of the people, becomes the organ of its in"terests and hopes."

Granted, then, this faith, that Cæsar ruled, or aspired to rule, by the right of popular choice-that, in fact, if not in name, he too was the "elect of millions"-the apparent unfairness of many of the judgments passed by the Imperial chronicler is explained away. Even in a historical point of view, these judgments seem to me worth considering. Our knowledge of the life and times of Cæsar comes to us chiefly through sources tinged with partizan sympathy for the order of things which he overthrew. Long after the bitterness of the revolution had passed away, down perhaps to our own times, the memory of the great republic stood between Cæsar and the fulness of his fame. The traditions of an aristocracy are always grand; and, while the recollection of its collective selfishness and oppression perishes with its existence, the memory of the high deeds which its individual members wrought survives for ages. Thus, the conclusion that the party of Cicero and Cato was that of liberty and right and justice has been rather assumed as an axiom than demonstrated as a fact.

But, be the historical value of the Emperor's criticism what it may, it is easy to see that the men of his own time-the Guizots, and Thiers, and Lamartines, and Cavaignacs-were in the mind of the historian when he wrote of Cato, and Cicero, and Brutus. It is not so much against Bibulus, as against the doctrinaires of the Orleanist school, that the following words were written :

:

"It is sad to see the accomplishment "of great things often thwarted by the "little passions of short-sighted men, "who only know the world in the small "circle to which their life is confined. "By seconding Cæsar Bibulus might "have obtained an honourable reputa"tion. He preferred being the hero of

[ocr errors]

a coterie, and sought to obtain the "interested applause of a few selfish

senators, rather than with his col

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

over, one of those who find that all goes well when they are themselves "in power, and that everything is endangered when they are out." And the regret which Cæsar is represented to have felt, because he could not win to himself the support of a "faction which had at its head such illustrious names," has clearly been shared full many a time by the creator of the Second Empire, when he too found himself constrained "to have dealings "with those whose antecedents seemed

to devote them to contempt," and could only console himself for the employment of the St. Arnauds, and Fleurys, and De Mornys, by the reflection that "the best architect can build only with the materials under his hand."

Indeed, the occasional glimpses of a sort of self-retrospect are to me among the most curious features of this remarkable book. Every now and then the Emperor appears for a moment to drop the vindication of his hero, or of the Napoleons beneath the name of Cæsar, and to speculate philosophically on his own position and on the judgment that mankind will pass on him. Balaam has set himself to sound the praises of Balak; and yet, ever and anon, he utters perforce a blessing upon Israel. "Absolute power, whether it belongs to one man

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

or to a class of individuals, finishes "always by being equally dangerous to "him who exercises it"- -an odd expression, surely, in the mouth of the self-erected autocrat. Could insight into the time to come have given utterance to the reflection that " excesses in

[ocr errors]

power always give birth to an im"moderate desire for liberty"? or does some dark memory of the days of December inspire the remark, when the writer is dwelling on the excesses of Clodius, as the agent of Caesar's will, "that such instruments, when em"ployed, are two-edged swords, which

[ocr errors]

even the most skilful hands find it "difficult to direct"? If space would

allow me, I could pick out many more of these passages, where the thought of the writer's own fortunes appears to replace the recollection of the subjectmatter on which he is employed. One passage only I must quote as a strange defence of that Villa Franca treaty, which is, perhaps, the most contested point in the career of Napoleon III. After describing the exultation of the Greeks at the Roman attempt to restore freedom to Hellas, the author proceeds: "There was, however, a shadow on this "picture. All Peloponnesus was not "freed; and Flaminius, after having "taken several of his possessions from Nabis, king of Sparta, had concluded

[ocr errors]

66

peace with him without continuing "the siege of Lacedæmon, of which he "dreaded the length. He feared also "the arrival of a more dangerous enemy, "Antiochus III. who had already "reached Thrace, and threatened to go 66 over into Greece with a considerable army. For this the allied Greeks, "occupied only with their own interests, reproached the Roman consul with "having concluded peace too hastily."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Something of the same sort of desire to rehabilitate his own past influences, I think, the quasi-apology offered for Catiline. Between the unsuccessful conspirator of Rome and the successful conspirator of Paris there are not wanting some features of resemblance; and the reflection, that whatever may have been Catiline's vices and crimes against the State, he could not have won over so many adherents or raised such enthusiasm throughout Italy, unless he had been the champion of a grand and generous idea, is a statement due in all likelihood to other considerations than a mere wish to do justice to an overabused character in history.

But the real defence of Cæsar, as the representative of Imperialism, is not based upon any personal considerations. It is rested on the broad and intelligible ground, that the overthrow of the Republic, and the concentration of the powers of government within one hand, were, at the time, the best thing for Rome and Italy. No attempt whatever is made

to prove, at any rate in this volume, nor-for that matter, in the "Idées Napoleoniennes "—that an autocracy is the best abstract form of government, or the ideal after which nations should strive. If I appreciate rightly the theory of the author, it is that there is no such thing in the world as a single form of polity that is best at all times and for all nations. That government is the best for each people which corresponds most closely to the genius of the nation, which carries out most thoroughly the aspirations of the people, and which secures most effectually the reign of law, and order, and security. Now, according to the Napoleonic view of history, the constitutional institutions of Rome to apply a modern term to an old fact-had become inadequate to satisfy the desired conditions of government. Peace was not preserved within the State, law was not enforced, order was not established. Italy required a single ruler, uncontrolled by Senate and consuls, in order to form her into one homogeneous whole, in order to extend the "Nomen Latinum-that is, the language, manners, and whole civiliza"tion of that race of which Rome was "but the first representative." The democratic tendency of the age, developed by the spread of Greek literature and philosophy, was thwarted and paralysed by the rigid constraints of the Roman constitution. The world, in fact, was "out o' joint," and Cæsar, like Hamlet, was born to set it right; only, unlike the Prince of Denmark, he welcomed the task allotted to him. Whether Cæsar was or was not actuated by ambitious motives, is an entirely secondary consideration. "Who doubts his am"bition? The important point to know "is, whether it was legitimate or not, "and if it were to be exercised for the "salvation or the ruin of the Roman "world." Answer these interrogatives in the affirmative, and then, in the opinion of his Imperial biographer, you must recognise Cæsar as one of those men whom "Providence raises up to stamp a new era with the seal of their genius."

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Now, in discussing the justice of view, we have before us two questions resting on entirely different considerations, and which yet are very apt to be confused. Whether Cæsar's accession to power was a benefit to the world is a totally distinct question from the question whether he achieved power by rightful and honourable means. Cæsarism may have tended to the good of mankind, and yet Cæsar's character may be tarnished for ever by the method he adopted to consummate his greatness. The latter issue is one rather for his contemporaries than for succeeding generations; the former is one for all time. Happily for the world, the influence of a man's private character extends far less widely, and operates for a far shorter period, than his public action. Brutus may have been right in considering that Cæsar merited a traitor's death, and yet Cæsar may, through his rule, have been a benefactor to his country and his kind. According to the Napoleonic faith, the justice of Cæsar's sway depends, not on the personal qualities of the man, but on the exigencies of the period in which his lot was thrown. This faith has little resemblance to the harsh and unphilosophical doctrine, if any one holds such a doctrine, that the strong man has a right to rules imply because he is stronger than his neighbours-a doctrine justifying every description of tyranny which the world has known. All that the Emperor endeavours to prove is that there are certain conjunctions in the world's history when, in the interests of mankind, power must be intrusted to a single hand, and that, when such a conjunction arises, the man who monopolizes power is a benefactor, not a malefactor. The doctrine is no doubt liable to fearful perversion. It is easy for any usurper to say that, because he is able to become an autocrat, therefore the tendency of events demands an autocracy. But the fact that the doctrine is dangerous if perverted does not prove that it is never true. What one wishes is that the critics of the Napoleonic theory, instead of contenting themselves with the assertion that Imperialism is always an evil (a fact which

nobody doubts) would prove also that it is the greatest of all evils-would show, with reference to the particular case in dispute, that the form of government inaugurated by Cæsar was not an improvement upon the order of things which preceded it. After all, the Empire secured to Italy centuries of internal peace, and of external greatness. It produced a degree of civilization, of progress, and material development, such as the world had never witnessed before; and, above all, it gave to the bulk of its subjects an amount of happiness and security and order which was only reserved for a few beneath the rule of the republic. I am not saying that these blessings were due to the Empire-I am only asserting it must be shown they are not due before we can fairly join in the cry that Imperialism is an evil unredeemed by any compensating advantages. Gibbon was certainly not an apologist of despotism; and yet he avers that, "If a man were called to fix a period "in the history of the world, during "which the condition of the human

[ocr errors]

race was most happy and prosperous, "he would without hesitation name "that which elapsed from the death of "Domitian to the accession of Com"modus." And it is certain that, for centuries after the Empire had passed away, its memory was still fondly cherished as the great protecting power of law and security and order, and that the dream of its possible revival was entertained by the most brilliant intellects of a far later age when the principle of individual freedom was again asserting its supremacy. The evidence of history seems to show that the cruelties of the wicked Emperors did not affect the masses to any great extent. The famous words

"Sed periit postquam cerdonibus esse timendus Cœperat. Hoc nocuit, Lamiarum cæde

madenti,"

imply clearly enough the limits within which the democratic sway of the autocrat could be safely exercised.

To hold such a faith as I conceive is shadowed forth in this Imperial life of

Cæsar, need not involve disloyalty to the principles of free government. The only heresy likely to be held, if it be an heresy, is whether there is any virtue in the forms of constitutional institutions when once they have ceased to secure that security and order whose maintenance is the object of all government whatever. Few people, I think, would assert that the South American Republics derive any real advantage from the circumstance of their having the theories of ministerial responsibility and of parliamentary taxation. amongst the principles of their political institutions. The real defect of an autocracy is, that it is of its nature transitory, and therefore cannot secure permanent order; but, in a transition period, it may well be a less evil to a country than the perpetuation of a system of constant revolution and factious disturbance.

enrolled

It would be idle to deny that these reflections, if they have any value at all, suggest the possibility of a similar defence for the system of government which the eulogist of Cæsar has established in France. The parallel may not hold good between the Caesars and the Napoleons; and many years, if not generations, must pass away before the world can judge whether the work of the Second Empire has been evil or good. My only feeling in putting forward these considerations is a hope that in some small way they may tend to suggest the necessity of adopting a more philosophic tone in criticising the rule of the greatest of living sovereigns. Surely we have had railing enough. For well-nigh fifteen years we have gone on ridiculing, abusing, and attacking the Second Empire. If fine writing, and eloquent declamation, and burning invective could have killed a man, the object of our abuse would have perished long ago. Yet, somehow, he has lived down the storm of words. It has been with us a foregone conclusion, that every word he spoke was dishonest, that every act he did was done from some base motive, that every virtue he seemed to possess was in reality a vice;

and that his success was nothing but the triumph of rascality, and intrigue, and low cunning. We have denied him even that one quality of physical courage which one would have thought beforehand was indispensable for a man who, single-handed, has raised himself to the height of power. And, thus, his character has been throughout an impenetrable mystery to us. Refusing to judge of him as we judge of other men-by his works, we have been perpetually torturing ourselves to discover some non-natural explanation for acts perfectly intelligible on the hypothesis that their author was a man not devoid of high inspirations, or of an unselfish desire to fulfil what he, rightly or wrongly, believes to be his mission. I have no desire to see success worshipped, as success; but the cause of success always seems to me deserving of investigation.

It is said the only criticism passed by Napoleon III. on Mr. Kinglake's book was "C'est un livre ignoble." Yet it is hard to doubt that the recollection of that bitter personal attack was present to his mind when he speaks of the scant measure of justice that Cæsar received from the chroniclers of his history. For a moment the cold impassive dignity of the style rises to something like passion, as the author comments on those historians who assumed that "all Cæsar's actions have a "secret motive which they boast of "having discerned after the event," and speaks of the "strange inconsistency" of those who impute "to great men at the same time mean motives and super"human forethought." But this tone of retort is soon dropped in order to resume the wonted style of grave reflection. The concluding words of the book we quote in French, as the English translation fails to convey their purport:

66

"Ne cherchons pas sans cesse de "petites passions dans de grands âmes. "Le succès des hommes supérieurs, et "c'est une pensée consolante, tient plutot à l'élévation de leurs senti"ments qu'aux spéculations de l'égo

66

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

If this counsel were followed, if we could bring ourselves to hold the consoling faith that the success of great men is due not so much to petty passions, to sordid and selfish cunning, as to some moral elevation of mind, we should possibly understand more thoroughly than, as a nation, we ever yet

have done the true secret of the success of the Napoleons.

It may be urged that any such impartial estimate of Imperialism is tantamount to an approval of those acts of violence which initiated the Empire, and of those arbitrary measures which have followed its establishment, and which still are maintained in operation. The argument is more ingenious than sound. It is not the purpose of those whose opinions I share to defend in any way the institutions of the French empire. Their merit or demerit is, in my judg

ment, a matter to be left entirely to the decision of the French people. My plea amounts solely to this, that there are epochs when democratic Imperialism suits a nation better than aristocratic or bureaucratic constitutionalism, and that the success which has attended the second empire is some prima facie evidence that such an epoch had arrived in France in the days when the sometime prisoner of Ham first began to attract the notice of men. If this plea be sound, it is childish to content ourselves with idle invectives against the "Coup d'État,"

or to consider that we have settled the whole question of the Napoleonic rule. when we have stigmatized it with the name of Imperialism. It is possible that the experience of future years may confirm the truth of our popular distrust in the stability of the empire. But as long as the "Life of Cæsar" survives it will remain as a testimony that its authorbe his faults or vices what they maywas not a man of low ambitions and

vulgar ends. That justice, at least,

must be done in future to the Third Napoleon.

SONG OF THE VOLUNTEERS.

ENGLAND, as of old, girdled round by ocean-foam,
Now boasts a double breastwork guarding hearth and home.
Will it live, this inner band, lasting like the sea?

Comrades can they trust us ever to be?

Comrades can they trust us ever to be?

Comrades can they trust us ever to be?

When the "line of red" springs up, at alarum of the drum, To meet invading hosts though fifty-fold they come,

Will they find us, brothers, there, standing steadfastly,

Side by side, side by side, ever to be?

Side by side, side by side, ever to be?
Side by side, &c.

Let us come, forming fast, to aid our brothers there,
Till clothed seem all our cliffs in the colours that we wear;
And we'll live, if we live, but in homes that are free,

For our Queen and our Country ever to be.

For our Queen and our Country ever to be';
For our Queen, &c.

« PreviousContinue »