be a most striking and useful moral and political Lesson on true and false glory, and further would afford the strongest illustrations of the difference in human affairs of what is called the power of Fortune and the influence of prestige and the power of moral character and virtue See Napoleon deserted at his utmost need, by those his prosperous bounty gorged. See Napoleon forced to abdicate his twice snatched Imperial sceptre!—and compare this with your Washington laying down his dictatorship, his absolute dominion, voluntarily, the moment he had accomplished his great purpose of making his beloved country, the New World, free and independent. Then the deep silent attachment shown to him when he retired from the army, parted from military power, took leave of public life, is most touching—quite sublime in its truth and simplicity, in as strong contrast as possible with all the French acclamations, inconstancy, frivolity, desertion, treachery, insult toward their prostrate idol of an Emperor. I felt while I read, and I feel while I reflect, how much of the difference between Napoleon and Washington must be ascribed to the different times, nations, circumstances in which they were placed. But independent of all these, the comparison ably and clearly drawn would lie between the individual characters—between moral and religions power and influence and intellectual powers even supported by military glory and political despotism. The comparison would ultimately he between success and merit—and between their transient and durable effects—their worldly and never-dying consequences.
Forgive me, my dear Mrs. Ticknor, for my having been actually run away with thus, and forgetting what I was going to say when I began. I was going to say that I wish Mr. Ticknor would draw the comparison between these two heroes of False and True Glory — between real Patriotism, true and great to the last, and Ambition using patriotism as a mask and having it struck from his hand powerless at the last. There is no one more able, better fitted to draw this than your husband. Channing has said well of the character of Napoleon as far as he went. But Mr. Ticknor, I conceive, has wider views, more means of information, and a less rhetorical style than Channing; and Sparks, having been the biographer of Washington, might be considered as a party too much concerned to be quite impartial. I am ashamed to have written so much that must seem common-place to him. But I will not tear the pages, as I am tempted to do, because there is a possibility that when you read them to him it might turn his mind to the subject—and no matter for the rest. *******
I do not know whether I was most interested, dear Mrs. Ticknor, in your picture of your domestic life and happy house and home, or
