4

INTRODUCTION.

and royal legitimate idiocy? But party feeling aside, itwas scarcely possible for any man to write an impartial,much less authentic, history of the man and the timesportrayed by Walter Scott , without the personal connectionabove alluded to. In his Life of Napoleon, Scott only shinesas a political partizan and practised writer, with a strongintention of doing his best to make the man whom he hadduring his entire life regarded only as an enemy, appear asodious and contemptible as possible.

As well might the historian of the reign of Cromwellundertake his task, upon the faith of documents publishedin the time of Charles II, —“ The trials of the Regicides,” &c.,as the historian of Napoleon and of the French people cullmatter from the works published in England on the subject,during the last thirty years.

In the year 1900, Sir W. Scott would have been on a parwith other men of talent, in the matter of access tohistorical truths ; and then it is probable, that his greatability as a writer would have given him the superiorityover contemporary historians; but for him, in 1820, toundertake the history of Napoleon, can only be regarded asa book-making speculation.

The unavoidable introduction of many anecdotes, details,and unimportant facts, into the texture of a work like this ofmine, deprives it of the severe character of the strictlyhistorical composition; but I shall endeavour to furnishmatter, at the convenient places, for the cogitation of suchof my readers as can derive gratification from other thancard-table prattle.

Truth and falsehood are so very different in their essencesand their very aspects, that foolhardy indeed must be the manwho would conjoin such heterogeneous materials, even whilea thousand living witnesses could rise up to confound him !

I do not pretend to more penetration or sagacity than my