Page:Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte 11th ed - Richard Whately (1874).djvu/42

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

36

HISTORIC DOUBTS RELATIVE TO

show a strong propensity to accumulate upon one individual (real or imaginary) the exploits of many; besides multiplying and exaggerating these exploits a thousand-fold. Thus, the expounders of the ancient mythology tell us there were several persons of the name of Hercules (either originally bearing that appellation, or having it applied to them as an honor), whose collective feats, after being dressed up in a sufficiently marvellous garb, were attributed to a single hero. Is it not just possible, that during the rage for words of Greek derivation, the title of "Napoleon," (Ναπολέων), which signifies "lion of the forest," may have been conferred by the popular voice on more than one favorite general, distinguished for irresistible valor? Is it not also possible that "Buona parte" may have been originally a sort of cant term applied to the "good (that is, the bravest, or most patriotic) part" of the French army, collectively, and have been afterwards mistaken for the proper name of an individual?^[1] I do not profess to support this conjecture; but it is certain that such mistakes may and do occur. Some critics have supposed that the Athenians imagined Anastasis ("Resurrection") to be a new goddess, in whose cause Paul was preaching. Would it have been thought anything incredible if we had been told that the ancient Persians, who had no idea of any but a monarchical government, had supposed

↑ It is well known with how much learning and ingenuity the Rationalists of the German school have labored to throw discredit on the literal interpretation of the narratives, both of the Old and New Testaments: representing them as MYTHS, that is, fables allegorically describing some physical or moral phenomena—philosophical principles—systems, etc.—under the figure of actions performed by certain ideal personages; these allegories having been, afterwards, through the mistake of the vulgar, believed as history. Thus, the real historical existence of such a person as the supposed founder of the Christian religion, and the acts attributed to him, are denied in the literal sense, and the whole of the evangelical history is explained on the "mythical" theory.
Now it is a remarkable circumstance, in reference to the point at present before us, that an eminent authoress of this century has distinctly declared that Napoleon Buonaparte was not a man, but a SYSTEM.

[1] It is well known with how much learning and ingenuity the Rationalists of the German school have labored to throw discredit on the literal interpretation of the narratives, both of the Old and New Testaments: representing them as MYTHS, that is, fables allegorically describing some physical or moral phenomena—philosophical principles—systems, etc.—under the figure of actions performed by certain ideal personages; these allegories having been, afterwards, through the mistake of the vulgar, believed as history. Thus, the real historical existence of such a person as the supposed founder of the Christian religion, and the acts attributed to him, are denied in the literal sense, and the whole of the evangelical history is explained on the "mythical" theory.
Now it is a remarkable circumstance, in reference to the point at present before us, that an eminent authoress of this century has distinctly declared that Napoleon Buonaparte was not a man, but a SYSTEM.

[1]