Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1894-06-03

g ANst4 4lrN4lltla
What pity that 50 great man
should have been so badly raised" said
Talleyrand Of Napoleon. And perhaps
no juster judgment was ever passed on
the character Of any man than this,
which is at once accusation, excuse and
explanation.
Napoleon was undoubtedly a result
OF bad breeding, for from his tenth year
he was bred q soldier, and everything
10 him which promised to interfere with
his success as a soldier was eradicated.
he became one o. the worst educated
men and most complete soldiers OF
history. Alexander and julius Caesar,
with whom be is always COM
pared by the prlZe-tasers In
the debating societies, were in their
day much better educated men than he
was In his. AlsXaUder's general educa-
ton was looked after by one OF the
most celebrated Of all the learned men
Of Greece, and Julius Cesar was one OF
the most accomplished Of the Roman
literary men OF his time. or the early
education OF such professional soldiers as
Genghis Khan our knowledge is unsaJ-
iSfactory. Perhaps a comparison with
Genghis IN the matter OF general edu-
cation and good breeding might be to
Napoleon'S advantage. Without at
tempting 20 determine which Of the
two was the more successful soldier, 10
may be accepted as true beyond the
possibility of contradiction that NapO-
leon was the greatest military specialist
si9ce Genghis.
This is so generally conceded that,
teDt TO professional soldiers, NaSo-
le5n's military career has almost lost its
interest. II is in his personal charac-
ter - the result Of That Talleyrand
called his bad raising, that the world
continues TO be interested and it is q
notable fact that this interest Is now
greatly Increasing.
Perhaps no man Ia modern times has
been so thoroughly and systematically
lied about as Napoleon. 10 is barely
two generations since his death. Men
are still living who we're born before be
died, and vet almost everything which
concerns him is taking on the character
OF myth.
There have been three great periods
OF Napoleonlc discussion, the first dur
ing his lifetime; when IL was, Of course,
impossible for either his friends or his
enemies TO tell the truth about him be-
cause, on both Sides the Inclination for
truth was wholly absent.
Following his death, for a period OF
twenty-five years, his intimates and
those who either had or pretended
TO have personal knowledge OF
him kept alive discussion by their pub
LEGATIONS. To read on tue one hand the
exaggerated euloRies OF his friends and
bsnedciarieS aud on the other
the ferociOus Onslaughts made
on them and on him in
such Tory publications IS the old Lon
don Quarterly is to be put in danger Of
doubling whether truth is possible In
politics without a radical change in
human nature. Not only in England,
but on the Continent and 10 some extent
in America, his body was fought over
by Liberals and Conservatives, by Pro- |.
gressivists and RsactiOGists, With most |
unyielding determination and often with /
q HOmeric ferocity that Is hard 20 un- |
dsrstand, unless 10 is remembered that, /
despOt as he was, he was looked on by |
one side and the other as a representa- |
tive Of tho right OF the people to have /.
any system or any ruler they please,
regardless OF all claims OF heredity, OF
divine right or Of established prece-
dent
The third era OF Napoeonic discus
sion has begun 10 our own time, and 10
is now at it's height in France, where 10
dates from the magnificent invective Of
Tame, published some 10 years agO-an
inVectlve which In literary art and In
cumulative force probably surpaSses all
other examples OF the Philippe 10 the
literature OF ancient or modern Europe.