Will the conquests of Alexander be compared with his? They were effected over a rabble of effeminate, undisciplined barbarians; else his progress would hardly have been so rapid. Witness his father, Philip, who was much longer occupied in subduing the comparatively insignificant territory of the warlike and civilized Greeks, notwithstanding their being divided into numerous petty states, whose mutual jealousy enabled him to contend with them separately. But the Greeks had never made such progress in arts and arms as the great and powerful states of Europe, which Buonaparte is represented as so speedily overpowering. His empire has been compared to the Roman. Mark the contrast: he gains in a few years that dominion, or at least control, over Germany, wealthy, civilized, and powerful, which the Romans, in the plenitude of their power, could not obtain, during a struggle of as many centuries, against the ignorant half-savages who then possessed it; of whom Tacitus remarks, that, up to his own time, they had been "triumphed over rather than conquered."
Another peculiar circumstance in the history of this extraordinary personage is, that when it is found convenient to represent him as defeated,—though he is by no means defeated by halves, but involved in much more sudden and total ruin than the personages of real history usually meet with,—yet, if it is thought fit he should be restored, it is done as quickly and completely as if Merlin's rod had been employed. He enters Russia with a prodigious army, which is totally ruined by an unprecedented hard winter (everything relating to this man is prodigious and unprecedented); yet in a few months we find him intrusted with another great army in Germany, which is also totally ruined at Leipsic; making, inclusive of the Egyptian, the third great army thus totally lost. Yet the French are so good-natured as to furnish him with another, sufficient to make a formidable stand in France. He is, however, con-
