JULIUS CÆSAR.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1397, 9 May 1865, Page 2

JULIUS CÆSAR.

(From the Times, Feb. 27).

The Moniteur publishes the following preface of the History of Julius Caaar, written by the Emperor of tfie French, which will be published on the Ist March. It is as follows

" Historical truth ought not to be less sacred than religion. If the precepts of faith elevate oar soul above the interests of this world, the lessons of history, in their turn, inspire us with a love of the beautiful and the just, with the hatred of everything which is an obstacle to the advancement of the welfare of mankind. Those lessons, to be profitable, require certain conditions. It is necessary that facts should be reproduced with rigorous exactitude, that political and social changes should be philosophically analyzed, that the piquant attraction of the details of the lives of public men should not distract attention from their political task, or throw their providential mission into oblivion. "The historian too often gives us the various phases of history as spontaneous events, without diving deeper into anterior facts for their real origin and natural deduction ; in like manner as the artist who in reproducing the accidents of nature, devotes himself simply to their picturesque effect without being able in his picture to give their scientific demonstration. The historian ought to be more than a painter; he ought, like the geologist, who explains the phenomena of the globe, to disclose the secret of the transformation of our social world.

" But in writing history, what are" the means to ascertain the truth ? The only way is to follow the rules of logic. Let us take it for granted at once that great results are always due to a great cause, never to a small one ; in other words, an incident insignificant in appearance never leads to great results without a preexisting cause which has allowed that small incident to achieve a great result. A spark does, not create a great conflagration unless it falls upon combustible materials accumulated beforehand. Montesquieu confirms this idea

"' It is not good fortune,' he says, ' which rules the world There are general causes,

either moral or physical, which act in ever)'monarchy, elevate it, uphold it, or ruin it. All incidents are subjected to these causes, and if the chance of a battle—that is to say, a special cause—has ruined the State, there existed a general cause which implied that that State was to perish in a single battle ; in fact, the chief inducements absorb all other, special incidents' (1).

"If during a period of nearly 1,000 years, the Romans always issued forth triumphant from the most severe trials and from the greatest dangers, it is because there was a general cause which always rendered them superior to their enemies, and which did not suffer defeats and partial disasters to lead to a fall of their sway. If the Romans, after giving to the world the example of a people establishing themselves firmly and growing great bv liberty, have seemed since Caesar to throw themselves blindly into serfdom, it is because there existed a general reason which fatally prevented the Republic from returning to the pure form of its former institutions ; it is because the wants and the new interests of a society in labour required other means to be satisfied. In the same manner that logic proves to us in important events the reason why they are imperative, in like manner we must recognize both in the long duration of an institution the proof of its worth, and in the incontestable influence of a man upon his age the proof of his genius.

"The task consists, then, in endeavouring to discover the vital element which constituted the strength of the institution, like the predominating idea which made the man act. Following this rule we shall avoid the errors of those historians who collect facts transmitted by preceding ages without arranging them according to their philosophical importance; plorifying what deserves censure and leaving in the dark that which calls for light. It is not a minute analysis of the Roman organization which will make us understand the duration of so great an empire, but a deep investigation into the spirit of its institutions; it is not, moreover, a detailed narrative of the lesser acts of a superior man which will reveal to us the secret of his ascendancy, but a careful examination of the elevated motives of his conduct.

" When extraordinary facts demonstrate an eminent genius, what can be more contrary to good sense than to attribute to him all the passions and sentiments of mediocrity ? What more erroneous than not to recognize the pre-eminence of those privileged beings who appear, from time to time, in history as brilliant beacons, dissipating the darkness of their epoch and throwing light upon the future? To deny such pre-eminence would, moreover, be an insult to human nature, by believing it capable of submitting for a length of time and voluntarily to a domination not based upon real greatness or incontestable utility. Let us be logical, and we shall be just.

" Too many historians find it more easy to lower men of genius than to raise themselves by a generous inspiration to their level by penetrating their vast designs. Thus, as regards Caesar, instead of showing us Home torn by civil wars, corrupted by wealth, treading its ancient institutions under foot, threatened by powerful nations—the Gauls, the Germans, and the Parthians— incapable of maintaining itself without a stronger central power, more stable and more just; instead, I say, of drawing that faithful picture, Caesar is represented to us, from his very youth, meditating already upon supreme power. If he resists Sylla, if he disagrees with Cicero, if he enters into alliance with Pompey, it is all the result of that farsighted cunning which has divined everything to enslave everything ; if he dashes into Gaul, it is to acquire wealth by pillage (2), or soldiers devottd to his cause; if he crosses the sea to carry his eagles into an unknown country, the conquest of which will strengthen that of the Gauls (3), it was but to seek for pearls supposed to exist in the seas of Great Britain (4). If, after having vanquished the formidable enemies of Italy beyond the Alps, he meditates upon an expedition against the Parthians to avenge the defeat of Crassus, it is, say certain historians, because activity suited his nature, and that he enjoyed better health when in the field (5); if he accepts with gratitude a laurel crown from the Senate and bears it prouldly, it is to hide his bald head; if, finally, he is assassinated by the men whom he has overwhelmed with his bounty, it is because he wished to make himself King; as if he was not, for his contemporaries as well as for posterity, much greater than any king. Since Suetonius and Plutarch, such are the miserable interpre-1 tations which have been given to the noblest acts. But by what sign are we to recognize the greatness of a man ? In the sway of his ideas, when bis principles and his system triumph despite his death or his defeat. Is it not, in fact, the prerogative of genius to outlive destruction, and to extend its empire over future generations ? Caesar disappeared, and his influence predominates still more than during his lifetime; Cicero, his adversary, is obliged to exclaim. 'All the acts of Caesar, his writings, his words, his promises, his thoughts, are more powerful after his death thau if he were still alive' (6). During centuries it has sufficed to tell the world that such was tho will of Caesar for the world to obey.

"That which precedes sufficiently indicates the object I have proposed to myself in writing this history. That object is to prove that when Providence raises up such men as Cresar, Charlamagne, and Napoleon, it is to trace out to nations the path they ought to follow, to stamp a new era with the seal of their genius, and to accomplish in a few years the work of many centuries. Happy the nations who comprehend and follow them ! Woe to those who misunderstand and resist them ! They act like the Jews; they crucify their Messiah. They are blind and guilty—blind, for they see not the impotence of their efforts to suspend the final triumph of good ; guilty, for they only retard its progress, by impeding its prompt and fertile application. 4

Xn fact, neither the assassination of Cscs&r nor the imprisonment of St. Helena could destroy beyond revival two popular causes overthrown by a league disguising itself with the mask of liberty. I itus / Ciesar plunged Rome into the horrors of civil war ; he did not prevent the reign of Augustus, but he rendered possible those of Nero and Caligula. Nor has the ostracism of Napoleon by conspiring Europe prevented the resuscitation of the Empire, and yet how distant are we from that solution of great questions, from the appeased passions, from the legitimate satisfaction given to nations by the first Empire 1

"Thus, ever since 1815 has verified itself that prophecy of the captive of St. JJelena

" ' What struggles, what bloodshed, what years

J «iJLSi. eSqUieU * Qmndcm ' ft des Bo(2) Suetonius, Casar, xxii. S' 1 ] c .tesar resolved to cross over to Britain, the people of winch m every war had supported the Gauls."—CeJtr Guerre des Gaulcs, iv. ) xx, * (4) Suetonius, Omar, xlvii. editL ApPian> CiVil WarS ' eX ' 326 ' Scliweighceuser's (0) Cicero, Epistolat ad Atticim, siv. (v.)

will yet be required that the good I mankind may be realized (l) ?» 10 do to

" Napou-av " Palace of the Tuileries, March 20th, i BG2 „''