The New York herald., 1865-03-25

not because tho life OF the great Roman was
not sufficiently known, nor because The Emperor
hasGny new facts or dates, but simply because,
like King John, he ''had thing to say" and
Caesar was convenient person spropos to
whose name "the thing" could be consistently
said. He does not so much write the life Of
Caesar as he uses that life for his purposss-sos
the illustration and exploitation Of his own
ideas He consequently shapes Casar's history
TO suit his occasion, as mon sometimes torture
nature for tho sake of a simile. He steps lightly
over the ugly places, however important, and
dwells on q trife where he sees that he can
make point He interprets facts not so much
in accordance with broad laws Of evidence, as
in accordance with his immediate and narrow
purpose to supports favorite idea, and to make
it appear that certain system in which he has
u personal interest Is founded in Fundamental
natural law. Theories, whether they relate to
history, philosophy, physics or art are simply
the mental portraits Of those who theorize.-
Men who set about to interpret history give us
merely the measurement and character Of their
own intcilects in their interpretations and
however they may distort the facts that they
reason upon, every little distortion shows some
lineament of their minds. When the Spartans
made statue Of the Goddess Of Love, they
showed that they were nation Of fighters, for
they sculptured the image Of that tenderest Of
passions in the attitude Of combat II was an
image not of love but of Spartan thoughts. In
this same way the Emperor Of the French, while
ostensibly he draws Caesar, depicts in reality
another man. He puts forth not contribution
to Roman history, but continuation Of the
Napoleonic ideas, the propaganda Of his family,
q politicalpamphlet, . dynastic platform.
History or biography written thus is from the
commencement false, so far as It pretends to
be objective history. Amy religious creed or
dogma, it has been Familiarity said, can be
PROVED true by the Bible; but II the Bible is
to be rewritten from the standpoint Of any one
creed, it is easy enough to see that, though it
may be very good book, 1t win cease to be
the, Bible. Just in this way ingenuity can find
superficial evidences Of the truth Of any theory
in the life Of any great man; but If the lives
of great men are to be rewritten from such
theoretical standpoints, we must not expect
that they will be true. We must not, there
fore, expect to find the real Caesar in this
"Life;" but, finding the word Caesar used less
as the name Of man than as "a symbol Of
power" we may expect to find what is great
deal more noteworthy just now than any new
life of Cesar would probably be. That Is the
opinion Of one of the most remarkable men
now alive upon national development and
progress-upon the growth and tendencies Of
certain political systems-upon government
and the pcople-upon war and peace. We
must expect to find the full lineaments Of
the mind that now governs France, and
and we do. Especially we find put
forth here, more or less directly, two ideas,
which are the essential ones Of the whole !edi-
1ce, and in the consideration Of which Cesar
sinks ont Of sight, One relates to the true deve-
lopment Of national life; the other to the point
that France has now reached IN national deve-
lopmsnt and thence 70 the real position that
the author and his family occupy IN French
hhtory. Napoleon III. gives us IN these points
the keynotes Of his Hin They are unqnestaona-
bly, bis own points Of departure IN al this argu-
menk his conclusions upon both these points
are false. He esrs by shortdghtedne@ h his
views Of national development, and he eTTs by
the infatuation Of family pride and personal
vanity in his view Of the history Of France
His view Of national development b hat The
republic is . bYm Of national disintegration
and decay, and that monarchical government
b the one that eonsohdates nations and strength
ems and trains them for the grand achievements
Of history. He reaches this sonclusion by an
examination Of ancient and modern govern
ments; but IN tha4 examination he does not
hook for the truth Hs hooks only for what
favors his iea; and be decides against the
republic upon an assumption that certain facts
are the Inevitable outgrowth Of It's h5e, which
indeed are only It's accidents Monarchioal
government II We look ct Il without any pur.
pose TO further theory, Is seen to be the most
radimentary development Of national liie In
the very nature Of national progress that must
necessarily be the first step. AT first men are
associated In groups or tribes, apparently with
out government at all, and there is level In
their miseries. Then some individual arises
who is either physically or intellectually supe-
rior to the rest He may be chosen, like the
Hebrew monarch, because he Is head taller
than other claimants; or he may not be chosen
at all; he may find his place in virtue simply Of
his powers. II there Is wild beast to be slain
he Is the natural leader, because he is the
strongest man, and he Is the king for that occa-
sion Of public necessity. He win, in virtue Of
that or other power, thenceforth be the The
seus, the Hercules, the Romulus or the Nance
Copac Of his race, and will be looked up to az
0 god BY feebler men. His will Is then the FIRST
law that gives shape to society. But by the
time that this has happened TO any given com
munity two or three times there will have been
some growth. Other men make the discovery
Of their own powers-tho supremacy Of one ID
IL n. A. - \