(,
- - 3,
«*^ .^ O
$ ^ A T 3 \ t-\
SU G GESTIO N S
FOR THE APPLICATION
OF TETE
EGYPTOLOGICAL METHOD
TO
MODERN EIISTORY ;
§llu$tratô bg &ample$.
Avia Picridum peragro loca, nullius ante
Trita solo : juvat integros accedere fontes,
Atque haurire ; juvatque novos decerpere flores,
Insignemque meo capiti petere inde coronam, .
Unde prius nulli velarint tempora Musæ.
LUCRETIUS IV. ad imit.
�.
IL O N D O N ;
PARKER, SON, & BOURN, WEST STRAND.
1862.
SUGGESTIONS, &c.
THE Same canons of historical evidence, and the same
principles of historical criticism, must be applicable
both to ancient and to modern history. There can-
not be one mode of ascertaining historical truth for
ancient, and another mode of ascertaining it for
modern times. To assume such a diversity would
be as absurd as to suppose that there is one sort
of arithmetic applicable to ancient chronology and
another to modern chronology, or that the multipli-
cation table begins to be true at the christian era,
but is false for the period before Christ. It would
be as absurd as to suppose that the demonstrations
of Euclid were conclusive in his time, but became
unsound at the separation of the Eastern and Western
Empires.
The boundary between these two methods is
likewise arbitrary. Nobody can define the point
where ancient history ends, and where modern history
begins. Most writers assume a medieval period, in-
termediate between ancient and modern history, and
different from both ; but if a distinct medieval period
( 4 )
is admitted, we must suppose that there are three
sets of historical canons, one for antiquity, one for
the middle ages, and one for modern times.
But although reason points to the existence of
one set of rules of evidence, for all periods of time,
whether recent or remote, the writers who have com-
posed the history of ancient times have not practically
employed the same historical method as those who
have composed the history of modern times.
The historians of modern times have submitted
to a code of evidence, resembling in its strictness the
rules of testimony enforced in the judicial proceedings
of courts of justice. They have required the testi-
mony of known and named witnesses, contemporary
with the events; where the statements were conflicting,
they have determined the credibility of the different
witnesses, by comparing their interest, bias, and means
of information; they have sought to decide each con-
troverted question upon fixed data, admitting of a
certain criterion; they have excluded hypothesis,
unsupported by positive proof.
The historians of antiquity have pursued a wholly
different method; they have discarded the rule as to
contemporary testimony ; they have held that an
event need not be traced to the evidence of determinate
persons; but that facts can be satisfactorily estab-
lished by oral traditions and popular belief, reduced
into writing for the first time many centuries after
the dates of the occurrences themselves; they have
admitted naked hypotheses, both for the destruction
of the received narrative, and its re-construction on a
( 5 )
new basis; where conflicting testimonies existed, they
have allowed a selection of any one version at the
discretion of the historian.
The latter method has, since the revival of let-
ters, been pursued by many writers, distinguished
for their erudition, ingenuity, and originality; but
it has reached its culminating point in the writings
of the modern Egyptologists, which may be safely
recommended as the most finished model of this
style of composing history.
Now on comparing these two methods, we shall
not long doubt which offers the greatest advantages
to the historian, if he be a man of genius, capable
of appreciating the height and nobleness of his
mission.
The former method is cold, dry, stiff, and pedantic;
it damps the fire of the ardent searcher after new
truths; it clips the wings of his Soaring imagination;
it confines him within a straight and narrow course;
and it binds his movements with the chains of a
spurious logic. Worst of all, it imitates the con-
tracted spirit of legal technicalities. It may be
regarded as breathing the Spirit of historical red-
tapism.
The second method, on the other hand, is exempt
from all these defects. It is unrestrained, and easy
in its movements; graceful in its attitudes; and
elevating in its spirit; by its lofty flights it opens
commanding views of remote and unseen objects; it
warms the heart by its generous and sympathetic
visions. It is untainted by the jargon of lawyers.
( 6 )
Instead of adhering to an old, familiar, beaten track,
it expatiates over a wide and undiscovered region,
and throws light into the darkest recesses of primeval
ages, for our edification and enjoyment.
If as Aristotle says, curiosity is the mother of
science, the gratification of our curiosity with respect
to unknown periods of time, must be the highest
function of the historian. Another dictum of Aris-
totle, namely, that poetry is more philosophical
than history, has an important bearing on this
subject. It involves many deep truths; especially
it teaches us that history ought to throw off the
restraints of argumentative prose composition ; that
it ought to imitate the freedom and the fire of
poetry; and that it ought to address itself to the
imagination more than to the reason.
An attempt has of late been made, by some narrow-
minded critics, to extend the province of the former
method to ancient history, and to subject antiquity to
its rigid and debasing slavery. This attempt has
been, ought to be, and doubtless will continue to be,
vigorously resisted. It cannot be supposed that the
manly spirit of a British historian will tamely suffer
these shackles to be imposed on his speculations.
Still less can it be thought that the daring flights of
the German enguirer, or the comprehensive general-
izations of the French antiquarian, will be confined
within these narrow limits. If this endeavour were
to prove successful, the most powerful instrument
for the discovery of historical truth in remote ages
would be blunted and made unserviceable.
( 7 )
The interests of science rather demand that the
process should be reversed, and that instead of ex-
tending the modern method to ancient history, we
should extend the ancient method to modern his-
tory.
It is singular that no practical experiment for
effecting this transfer should hitherto have been
made. The absence of any such trial may be ac-
counted for by the separation which has hitherto
existed between ancient and modern history; by the
almost exclusive abandonment of the field of antiquity
to professed scholars and students of the classical
languages; and by the indifference with which the
historians of modern times have regarded ancient
history. The ancient world has too often been con-
sidered as an unsubstantial pageant, peopled with
unreal beings, and affording no instruction to modern
times. As the value of ancient history is better
appreciated, the excellence of the methods which
have been used for investigating it will be more
clearly understood.
The object of these pages is to recommend that
the method commonly used in the composition of
ancient history be transferred to the composition of
modern history, and that the historian of modern
times be encouraged to treat his subject with the
freedom which is permitted to the historian of an-
cient times.
It is manifest that modern history, treated ac-
cording to this method, would attain to a compass,
richness, and variety, and would exhibit a unity and
( 8 )
consistency, of which it has hitherto been desti-
tute. As, however, example is often better than
precept, and as general arguments in favour of a his-
torical method are unsatisfactory without a practical
illustration, it is proposed to shew by some actual
cases, the extent to which modern history may be im-
proved by the adoption of the other mode of treat-
ment, and the serious errors which have been ac-
credited under the received method.
It is deplorable to reflect upon the prevalence of
that indolence which has led historians to grasp
at facts which were nearest their hand, instead of
pursuing the distant and therefore less obvious
analogies on which the historian of antiquity has
founded his hypotheses. They have been prone to
dwell upon petty events, and to pursue captious
enquiries into mere details; instead of seizing the
spirit and character of an epoch in a wide compre-
hensive view.
It cannot be too often repeated, that facts, seem-
ingly obvious, and supported by direct proofs, are
tainted with the vice of superficiality. It is only
by profound researches, penetrating into the inmost
core of a subject, and illuminating its darkest depths;
it is only by far-seeing glances into remote and un-
discovered regions, that original views, worthy of
a great historian, can be formed. The historian of
modern times should imitate the historian of anti-
quity in cultivating the faculty of divination. He
should remember that facts patent to the sight, and
( 9 )
established by indisputable evidence, are within the
range of any ordinary writer. The historian of
genius should leave demonstration to inferior men: he
should confine himself to conjecture and hypothesis.
It must not however be supposed that conjecture
is necessarily accompanied with uncertainty, or hy-
pothesis with doubtfulness. The historian should
learn to feel confidence in his own conjectures; and
if he expresses that confidence with boldness, he
will succeed in communicating it to his readers.
The practice of the great Niebuhr, and the state
of mind in which he composed history, may be re-
commended as a model to the cultivator of historical
originality. The following extracts from his writings
will shew the extent to which he reconstructed the
early Roman history, and his undoubting confidence
in his own hypotheses.
In the preface to the second volume of his history,
he describes his continuous study, for sixteen months,
of the early history of the Commonwealth, and he
proceeds thus:–
‘My sight grew dim in its passionate efforts to pierce into the
obscurity of the subject ; and unless I was to send forth an incom-
plete work, which sooner or later would have had to be wholly
remodelled, I was compelled to wait for what time might gra-
dually bring forth. Nor has he been niggardly, but, though slowly,
has granted me one discovery after another.’—History of Rome, vol.
ii. p. 6. Translated by Hare and Thirlwall.
Writing to Savigny, 29th April, 1827, he thus
speaks of the second edition of his History of
Rome:—
©
º e e º º
• ef
Q
e G
• *
• * ,
gº
*
• * * C
w &
( Io )
“I trust you will believe that I could not help forming a
different judgment, and not suffer regret to mingle with the con-
viction which you have doubtless formed, that the contents of the
book have gained immensely in value ; that its principles are now
immovably fiated for all ages. I do not hesitate to say, that the
discovery of no ancient historian could have taught the world so
much as my work; and that all that may hereafter come to light from
ancient and uncorrupted sources, will only tend to confirm or develope
the principles I have advanced.'— Life and Letters of B. G. Niebuhr,
vol. ii. p. 353. English translation.
Writing to Madame Hensler, 1st July, 1827, he
says:—
“In the second volume, the first half has been revised, and
the period up to the decemviral legislation is entirely new. I
have no lack of materials; indeed it is one of my finest achievements,
that from the notices relating to these forty years I have brought
out a history worthy of full reliance, although it deviates essentially
from the statements of our historians.”—Ib. p. 355.
In a letter of December 20th, 1829, he gives
Madame Hensler further information as to the com-
position of the second volume of his history.
‘The present volume treats of detached facts, with respect to
which we have generally but very few external sources of correc-
tion; and arbitrary institutions, the traces of which are very
scanty and indistinct. My time has not been spent in vain. I
have freed the history from the year 260 (490 B.C.), onward, from
all falsifications, and in its restored state it will no longer be
liable to suspicion or falsification ; there is not a single chasm
left in the successive steps by which the constitution was de-
veloped; in fact, I think that no single question which might be
suggested by intelligent reflection remains unanswered. But
this I have only been able to attain very gradually; the most
important points are the result of sudden flashes of light and divina-
tions.:0i:b.raqazd to which it often seriously crossed my mind whether
&
© tº tº e & ©
( II )
I had not been inspired by the spirits of the ancients, as a reward for
my faithful efforts in behalf of their memory. But this I would on
no account say to any one but yourself; besides, I do not say it in
earnest now.'—Ib. p. 379.
The historian who pursues the method described
by Niebuhr may find it necessary to demolish the
traditionary narrative ; but he will build up a new
history in its place. Hence, he will escape the
charge of cold and hard scepticism, which will de-
servedly attach to the historian who follows the
strict or technical method; who requires that the
writer shall march within definite lines; and that
every fact shall be proved by evidence of a deter-
minate character. According to the free method,
the historian may destroy, but he reconstructs: he
may to a certain extent aim at merely negative re-
sults; but he does not stop there ; he produces
positive results as a compensation for his sceptical
processes.
The instances about to be adduced will probably
satisfy the most austere critic, that a writer who
treats modern as if it were ancient history, and par-
ticularly as if it were the history of remote and
primitive times (such as the return of the Hera-
clidae, the reigns of the Roman kings, the history of
Assyria before Cyrus, and of Egypt before Psam-
mitichus); who, moreover, takes as his models the
approved modern masters of the reconstructive his-
torical method, will find himself arriving at the most
satisfactory and the least expected results.
There is no part of the researches of the Egypto-
( 12 )
logists more convincing and instructive than the dis-
covery that dynasties, which are reported by the
ancient chronologists as successive, are, in fact,
contemporary ; and that different names occurring in
different parts of the series represent the same king.
This great discovery, stamped with the impress of
true historical genius, ought not to remain barren.
The idea which it involves is pregnant with results.
Transferred to modern history, it ought to bear fruits
worthy of its illustrious origin.
The writer of these pages does not venture to
think that he can discern all the consequences which
can be derived from this fertile principle. He does
not aspire to renovate modern history by discoveries
equal to those which writers of great inventive
powers have been enabled to make by its application
to ancient history. He will, however, indicate a few
cases in which the features of modern history, ob-
scured and distorted under the received tradition,
may be restored to their pristine truth by this reme-
dial and illuminating process.
It can scarcely have escaped the attention of the
most unobservant reader of the history of England
during the last two centuries, that the same events
seem to recur in successive cycles. The dynasty of
Stuarts is related to have reigned from 1603 to 1688.
Four kings, two named James, and two named
Charles, are said to have reigned during this period,
with a certain interval for what is called the Common-
wealth, under an usurper named Oliver Cromwell.
( 13 )
These four kings are succeeded by another usurper
named William, who marries Mary, a Stuart of the
royal line. William and Mary are succeeded by
Anne, a queen of the Stuart family. After this
queen, a dynasty of Hanoverian princes, connected by
marriage with the Stuarts, ascend the throne. But
during the reigns of the usurper William and his
successor Queen Anne, and the two first Hanoverian
reigns, there are, according to the traditionary ac-
count, two Stuarts, claiming the crown, and calling
themselves Kings of England. These two persons,
pretending to the royalty of Great Britain, are styled
James and Charles. Altogether there is so much
confusion in the received history of these Stuart
kings; some reigning, some deposed, some claiming
to reign, and all sharing the names of Charles and
James, that an hypothesis is called for, which shall
replace contradiction and obscurity by coherency
and light.
Now what can be more obvious than that there
is here a reduplication—that popular error or the
misdirected ingenuity of learned annalists has, by a
species of optical delusion, multiplied the objects,
and has created two kings out of the two pretenders
to the throne. Can it be doubted that Charles II.
and James II. are imaginary beings, reflected from
the two royal Stuarts who claimed the throne in
the succeeding reigns, and that the usurper Cromwell
is in like manner nothing but a reflection of the
usurper William : The history of England, when
( 14 )
properly reformed, will exhibit the true succession
of William III. after Charles I., and will eliminate
the two intermediate kings denominated Charles II.
and James II. as unmeaning repetitions of Charles I.
and James I., and as identical with James and
Charles the two Stuart Pretenders.
This hypothesis is so luminous, it is commended
by such internal probability, and it renders the
series of events so simple and coherent, that the
intelligent reader, accustomed to accept the hypo-
theses of the modern writers on antiquity, will
scarcely require any corroborative proof. But in
order to remove any unreasonable scruples, it is
thought right to adduce some of the arguments
which establish it on a solid foundation.
The resemblance between the adventures of the
two Stuart Pretenders for recovering their crown, and
the adventures attributed to the fictitious Charles II.
for the same purpose, is most striking. The close-
ness of this resemblance will be best appreciated, if
we first subjoin a summary of the real adventures
of the two Pretenders. The elder Pretender called
James was residing at Paris. His title to the
English throne was recognised by Louis XIV., the
Ring of Spain, the Pope, and the Duke of Savoy.
He sailed from France to Scotland, where his
adherents collected an army to support his cause ;
the price of £IOO,OOO was set upon his head; the
Scottish army invaded England, and marched as far
as Preston in Lancashire, where it was defeated.
The Pretender himself escaped in a boat from the
( I 5 )
coast of Scotland, and reached a French ship, which
conveyed him to France.
The younger Pretender, Prince Charles, was re-
siding at Paris; he embarked on the French coast, and
landed in Scotland. Here an army of his supporters
was speedily formed, so as to threaten the Hano-
verian government, and a reward of £30,000 was
offered to any one who would secure his person. Gene-
ral Cope, the commander of the Hanoverian forces,
fought a battle against Prince Charles at Preston-
pans, but without success. Charles afterwards in-
vaded England with his Scottish army, and marched
as far as Derby; but here he turned back in conse-
quence of the resistance of the Hanoverian troops,
commanded by the Duke of Cumberland. The cause
of Charles soon received a fatal blow at Culloden,
after which decisive battle he became a wanderer,
and was in concealment from April to September,
in constant danger of his life, and owing his safety
only to the fidelity of his adherents; at last he
escaped from the Scotch coast and landed in France.
When we compare with these narratives the
account of the adventures attributed to the young
king Charles Stuart, called the Second, we see at
once that it has been borrowed from them, and is
a mere legendary reproduction of the real history.
This Charles is denominated a king, but he is a
king in exile, and without dominions; he is not
more a king than the old Pretender, whose royal
title was recognised by France, Spain, and other
European powers. Like him, too, he is a son
( 16 )
of a King James. Each, moreover, has a royal
mother at Paris, protected by the French court, and
attached to the Roman Catholic religion. Both
these queens bear the name of Maria; the mother of
the Pretender is indeed called Mary, while the
mother of Charles II. is called Henrietta Maria, a
second name being prefixed by the caprice of
tradition ; but the appellations are substantially
identical. The resemblance does not stop here, for
both these Queen Maries are derived from an Italian
princely house. One is a descendant of the house
of Este, the other of the house of Medici; a dif-
ference which, seeing that Modena and Tuscany are
contiguous states, every Egyptologist must admit to
be scarcely perceptible.
Charles II. is described as invited to his native
dominions, not by the English, who were the chief
supporters of his alleged father, Charles I., but by
the Scots, his alleged father's bitterest enemies; he
sets out from Paris, where he is residing, and ulti-
mately he lands in Scotland; here his army, com-
posed of Scottish troops, is defeated in a pitched
battle at Dunbar, by an English army under the
command of the imaginary hero, Cromwell. Not-
withstanding this reverse, the young Charles marches
into England, encounters the formidable Cromwell
(who re-appears everywhere) at Worcester; and
here his Scottish army is completely routed. He
becomes a fugitive ; he is forced to escape in
disguise; a price is set upon his head; and after
many romantic adventures, in which his life is saved
( 17 )
by the fidelity of devoted adherents to his cause,
he reaches the coast, and lands safely in France.
The variations in this narrative from the adven-
tures of the two historical Pretenders, are so slight
that the fabricator of the Caroline legend could have
had little occasion to draw upon his invention. The
copy must be admitted to be almost servilely faithful
to its originals.
Like the two Pretenders, Charles is residing at
Paris under the protection of the French king. He,
like them, sails from France to Scotland ; he is wel-
comed by the natives, and received as their king.
They form an army to support his cause, and to re-
cover his throne. This army, in the case of the old
Pretender, is victorious at Prestonpans, not far from
Dunbar; in the case of the pretended Charles II.,
it is defeated at Dunbar. This variation was easily
introduced, and, moreover, is of no great moment ;
for the young Stuart king is able, notwithstanding
this defeat, immediately to invade England at the
head of his Scottish forces, and to march as far as
the midland counties of England. The place where
his onward course is arrested by the invincible
Cromwell is called Worcester. His namesake, the
Pretender, Prince Charles, marches with his Scottish
army as far as Derby, the capital of another midland
county, at nearly the same distance from the metro-
polis. The speculative historian, accustomed to the
interpretation of mythical narratives, will easily
divine the cause of this divergence. Worcester has
indeed been substituted for Derby in the legend; but
B
( 18 )
the legend recognizes Derby in another form. It re-
presents the Earl of Derby, himself king of Man,
and therefore sympathizing with a brother king, as
joining the standard of Charles Stuart on his march
from Scotland to England; but as sharing the re-
verses of the Stuart, as falling into the hands of a
victorious enemy, and as decapitated after the battle
of Worcester.
Now, when we bring the retreat of the army of
the Pretender from Derby, in the historical account,
into juxtaposition with the decapitation of the Earl of
Derby, in the legendary account, we cannot ſail to
recognize the deep significance of the latter incident.
It was natural that the Hanoverian army, flushed with
success, should destroy some of the lofty buildings
of Derby, in commemoration of their triumph. This
act of destruction the legend symbolized under the
decapitation of the loyal and high-born Earl of Derby.
With this ample recognition of the name of Derby in
the mythical narrative, the substitution of Worcester
for Derby, as the turning point in the fortunes of
the Stuart Pretender, is completely explained.
The adventures of King Charles after the battle
of Worcester, bear so close a resemblance to the
adventures of Prince Charles after the battle of
Culloden, that they cannot be believed to have hap-
pened separately to two royal pretenders of the same
family. -
The Young Pretender is concealed by Flora Mac-
donald, the intrepid Scottish heroine, at the risk of
her life. King Charles, in his romantic flight, is
( I 9 )
represented as concealing himself from his pursuers
in the branches of an oak. The cause of this le-
gendary permutation is obvious. Flora, the goddess
of flowers and vegetation, in one story, becomes, in
the other, an oak, the noblest vegetable product.
In further illustration of the close concordance
between the adventures of Charles II. after Worces-
ter and of the Young Pretender after Culloden, we
will extract the accounts of the two, as given by
Hume and Lord Stanhope in their Histories of Eng-
land.
‘Lane formed a scheme for his journey to Bristol, where, it
was hoped, he would find a ship in which he might transport
himself. He had a near kinswoman, Mrs. Norton, who lived
within three miles of that city, and was with child, very near
the time of her delivery. He obtained a pass (for during those
times of confusion this precaution was requisite) for his sister
Jane Lane and a servant, to travel towards Bristol, under pre-
tence of visiting and attending her relation. The king rode
before the lady, and personated the servant. When they arrived
at Norton's, Mrs. Lane pretended that she had brought along, as
her servant, a poor lad, a neighbouring farmer's son, who was ill
of an ague; and she begged a private room for him, where he might
be quiet. Though Charles kept himself retired in this chamber,
the butler, one Pope, soon knew him : the king was alarmed, but
made the butler promise that he would keep the secret from every
mortal, even from his master; and he was faithful to his engage-
ment. >k >{< >k >k
‘Windham, before he received the king, asked leave to en-
trust the important secret to his mother, his wife, and four ser-
vants, on whose fidelity he could rely. Of all these, no one
proved wanting either in honour or discretion. + 3 + +
‘The king continued several days in Windham's house; and
all his friends in Britain, and in every part of Europe, remained
in the most anxious suspense with regard to his fortunes; no one
could conjecture whether he were dead or alive ; and the report
of his death being generally believed happily relaxed the vigilant
( 20 )
pursuit of his enemies. Trials were made to procure a vessel
for his escape; but he still met with disappointments. Having
left Windham's house, he was obliged again to return to it. He
passed through many other adventures ; assumed different dis-
guises; in every step was exposed to imminent perils; and re-
ceived daily proofs of uncorrupted fidelity and attachment. The
sagacity of a Smith, who remarked that his horse's shoes had
been made in the north, not in the west, as he pretended, once
detected him, and he narrowly escaped. At Shoreham, in Sussex,
a vessel was at last found, in which he embarked. He had been
known to so many, that if he had not set sail in that critical mo-
ment it had been impossible for him to escape. After one and
forty days' concealment he arrived safely at Fescamp, in Normandy.
No less than forty men and women had at different times been privy
to his concealment and escape.’ Hume's History of England,
ch. 60, vol. vii. p. 174—6. Ed. 1826.
“But where was he, the young and princely chief of this ill-
fated enterprize—the new Charles of this second Worcester 2 His
followers dismissed to seek safety as they could for themselves—
he sometimes alome—sometimes with a single Highlander as his
guide and companion—sometimes begirt with strange faces, of
whose fidelity he had no assurance—a price put upon his head—
hunted from mountain to island, and from island to mountain—
pinched with famine, tossed by storms, and unsheltered from the
rains—his strength wasted, but his spirit still unbroken—such
was now the object of so many long-cherished oud lately tower-
ing hopes In the five months of his weary wanderings—from
April to September—almost every day might afford its own tale
of hardship, danger, and alarm, and a mere outline must suffice
for the general historian. It is much to Charles's honour, that,
as one of his chance attendants declares, “he used to say, that
the fatigues and distresses he underwent signified nothing at all,
because he was only a single person; but when he reflected upon
the many brave fellows who suffered in his cause, that he behoved
to own, it did strike him to the heart, and did sink very deep
within him.” But most of all entitled to praise appear the
common Highlanders around him : though in the course of these five
months the Secrets of his concealment became entrusted to several
hundred persons, most of them poor and lowly, not one of them was
ever tempted by the prize of £30,000 to break faith, and betray the
( 21 )
suppliant fugitive; and when destitute of other help, and nearly, as
it seemed, run to bay, he was saved by the generous self-devotion of a
woman.” Lord Stanhope's History of England, c. 29, vol. iii. p.
313, ed. 3.
The reader can judge for himself whether it is
credible that two Charles Stuarts, both seeking to
recover the crown of England, should, in two suc-
cessive centuries, one in 1651, the other in 1745,
have passed through this almost identical set of ex-
traordinary adventures ; whether such coincidences
can be accidental; and whether they can be reason-
ably accounted for on any other supposition than
that the one story is a legendary variation — a
mythical echo-of the other. Lord Stanhope was
too clear-sighted to overlook the resemblance; butnot
being called upon to analyse the historical character
of the received accounts of the reign of Charles II.,
and perhaps not being sufficiently versed in the
Egyptological method, which had not been fully de-
veloped when his history was written, he has not
pursued his idea to those consequences which it is
hoped the preceding enquiry has irrefragably esta-
blished.
Many of the Jacobite ballads, though admitted to
refer to the two Pretenders of the last century, would
apply equally well to the expedition of the youthful
Charles II. into Scotland, as it is described in the
legendary account—as in the well-known song—
‘ O Charlie is my darling,
My darling, my darling,
O Charlie is my darling,
The young Chevalier
( 22 )
‘Wi’ Highland bonnets cocked agee,
And braidswords shining clear,
They came to fight for Scotland's right,
And the young Chevalier.
* They've left their bonnie Highland hills,
Their wives and bairnies dear,
To draw their sword for Scotland's lord,
The young Chevalier.’
These stanzas would have suited the circumstances of
Charles II.'s army, as it is described to have been
formed in the beginning of 1651. It is scarcely
necessary to remind the reader that the Royalist party
in the seventeenth century were called Cavaliers—
and the youthful Charles II., as the type of the
Royalist’s party, would naturally be called ‘the
Young Chevalier.’
It may be added, as a further point of resem-
blance, that Charles II. is represented as having been
a Catholic from his early youth—and that both Pre-
tenders were warm disciples of the Church of Rome.
(See the article in Home and Foreign Review, No. 1,
July 1862, by Sir John Acton).
Cromwell may be resolved into two elements, one
historical, the other mythical. His historical element
is formed of So much of him as enters into the civil
war under Charles I. The mythical element repre-
sents the period of his successful usurpation desig-
nated the Commonwealth. Cromwell, as connected
with this period, is merely the duplicate of William
III., who ascended the throne by virtue of a revolu-
tion, and without any legitimate or hereditary title.
He is the mere perSonification of a rebellious people.
( 23 )
Charles I. was, in fact, succeeded by William ;
and hence when the fabulous Charles II. was in-
troduced into the series, it was natural to interpo-
late another imaginary usurper as the successor
of Charles I. A short reign, of three years, was
likewise assigned to a second James Stuart—but
he is driven from his throne, and becomes an exile
on the Continent, like the two Pretenders. Like
them, too, he is a Catholic, and a refugee at the
Court of France.
The two successive Pretenders were named James
and Charles Stuart. The two legendary Stuarts,
interpolated in the series of kings, are named Charles
and James. Thus tradition loves to reverse the
order of things: sometimes indeed, as Niebuhr has
pointed out, it even interchanges contraries.
The line of Stuarts, reformed according to the
Egyptological method, will therefore stand thus:-
James I.
Charles I.
[Commonwealth—fabulous.]
[Charles II. the same.]
[James II. the same.]
William III, anticipated in Cromwell.
Anne.
The titular Kings or Pretenders, James and
Charles Stuart, contemporary with George I.
and George II., are anticipated in Charles II.
and James II.
The preceding reconstruction of the history of
( 24 )
the Stuarts has so fully exemplified the application
of the Egyptological method to modern history, and
has shown so clearly the important results to which
it leads, that it will be unnecessary to use equal
minuteness in our next investigation. The case
which we shall now select as affording an illustration
of this method, will be taken from modern French
history ; and we shall content ourselves with indi-
cating the general features of the reconstruction, with-
out adducing all the detailed proofs of which it admits.
According to the received history, Napoleon I.,
Emperor of the French, by a series of victories un-
exampled in modern times, conquers a large part of
Europe, and renders it, directly or indirectly, de-
pendent upon France. In 1812, he makes an expe-
dition against Russia, on a gigantic scale; but his
attempt is unsuccessful : he retreats from Moscow ;
his retreat, from cold and hunger, is disastrous; the
tide of his fortunes turns. He sustains a great de-
feat at Leipsic, in 1813: the allied armies advance
upon Paris; he makes a brilliant defensive campaign
—but in vain—he is forced to abdicate his imperial
crown. The Bourbons are restored to the throne of
France, and the once victorious Napoleon is banished
to the little island of Elba.
But his exile is of brief duration. He arrives at
Elba in May, 1814. In March, 1815–finding that
the Bourbons had rendered themselves odious to
their subjects by the measures of their government—
he lands in France with a handful of men. He is
enthusiastically welcomed by the army; regiment
after regiment joins his standard; the people confirm
( 25 )
the voice of the soldiery; the Bourbons, without
striking a blow, or firing a gun, fly from Paris, and
take refuge in a place beyond the French frontier:
Napoleon re-enters Paris, and is again installed as
emperor. He adopts a moderate and popular course ;
he gives a constitution to his subjects, and organizes
an army. Thus far the received account is con-
sistent and probable, and is supported by the con-
current testimony of native and foreign writers.
But at this point the narrative changes its character;
it becomes improbable and incoherent ; it exhibits
marks of a legendary origin, and is no longer worthy
of credit.
We are informed that Napoleon, recently restored
to his throne, instead of continuing the peace which
France had enjoyed under his unpopular predecessor,
prepares for war, and that he commences a campaign
on the plains of Belgium against the Prussian and
English armies. We are further informed that in
this campaign (which lasts only seven days), he
fights two great battles, in one of which he defeats
the Prussian army, in the other he is defeated by the
English and Prussian armies united. The first is
called the battle of Ligny, the second the battle of
Waterloo.
The received story goes on to relate that Napo-
leon returns, without attempting further resistance, to
Paris; that he again abdicates his throne; that the
Allies again take Paris, that Napoleon delivers him-
self up to an English man-of-war, and that he is again
sent to an island, where, after some years passed in
Querulous inaction, he dies a natural death.
( 26 )
It is further reported that the Bourbons, who dis-
appeared before the breath of the omnipotent Napo-
leon a few months previously, like leaves blown away
by the wind, replaced themselves on the throne of
France; but that they were again expelled by a
popular insurrection in 1830; that the people who
had just deposed one Bourbon king, lost no time
in raising another Bourbon to the throne. They are
represented as having ejected this second Bourbon
king in 1848, and as having established a republican
government. The republican government, however,
is of short duration; a member of the Bonaparte
family, Louis Napoleon, becomes first head of the
Republic, and afterwards Emperor.
Now any one who contemplates this supposed
series of events with the eye of a speculative
historian, must perceive that some hypothesis is
needed to invest it with credibility, and that it
requires to be subjected to a reconstructive process.
It is evident that fiction has been here at work;
that there has been a reduplication of events.
Happily a simple hypothesis will substitute light
for darkness. Is it not evident that the period
from 1815 to 1848, in the ordinary narrative, is
mythical, that the two restored Bourbon dynasties,
the two little revolutions by which they are over-
thrown, and the little republic which succeeded
them, are all imaginary? that the battle of Waterloo,
the second abdication of Napoleon, and his second
exile to an island, are fabulous 7 and that the
Emperor Napoleon, who recovered his throne in
( 27 )
1814, and the Emperor, now called Louis Napoleon,
are in fact one and the same person 2
With respect to the alleged battle of Waterloo,
it may be observed that the reverses of Napoleon
before 1815 are acknowledged by native as well as
by foreign historians. The disasters and sufferings
of the retreat from Moscow have been described in
full detail by French writers; no attempt has been
made to deny them ; even Napoleon himself admitted
in his celebrated 29th bulletin, that his army had
undergone a great reverse. But for the battle of
Waterloo the evidence is not equally clear, or free
from dispute. Napoleon himself is said to have
printed a proclamation, dated at Brussels, claiming
the victory; and it is an undoubted fact that he
despatched a bulletin to Paris during the battle,
announcing himself as victor. Is it likely that a
general so experienced as Napoleon, who had com-
manded in so many great battles, should have been
mistaken as to a fact So obvious !
The French authors, whose works are composed
without bias against the Imperial dynasty, give no
distinct account of the loss of this much talked-
of battle. M. Thiers, the most recent historian,
who has had access to all that has been writ-
ten on the subject, considers the chances of suc-
cess to have preponderated greatly in Napoleon's
favour ; he represents the military dispositions of
the English and Prussian generals as one series of
blunders, and those of Napoleon as faultless ; he
describes the chief part of the English army as
( 28 )
“overthrown,” as ‘cut to pieces,’ as “annihilated.’
He says that the victory was on the point of being
gained by the French, and that the Brussels road
was covered with fugitive English. Having given
this account, he proceeds to destroy the effect of
it by declaring that the French troops, being unable
to see Napoleon on account of the darkness, believed
him to be dead, lost courage, fled in disorder, and
left the victory to their adversaries.
Now the battle of Waterloo was fought on the
18th of June, which is nearly the longest day in
the year ; and as the final charge of the French
guards is reported to have been made between six
and seven o’clock p.m., it is impossible that Napoleon
could at that time have been concealed by the dark-
ness. Moreover, in modern fields of battle, which
are covered with smoke, and often reach over a wide
space, the troops are not accustomed to depend upon
the personal view of their general. The account
of the battle of Waterloo given by M. Thiers may
therefore be safely pronounced to be inconsistent
with itself; his theory that the battle was lost by
the French is irreconcilable with his own description
of the comparative abilities of the generals, and of
the conduct of the troops engaged on both sides.
His explanation of the cause of the alleged defeat
of the French is manifestly insufficient and erro-
neous, and adopted only out of a weak deference to
the current tradition. On the whole, it may be
safely affirmed that the decisive character of a great
French disaster, which popular tradition has im-
( 29 )
pressed upon the battle of Waterloo, is owing to
the national partiality of English and Prussian
Writers.
The incident of the banishment of Napoleon to
the island of St. Helena, is a manifest reduplication
of his banishment to the island of Elba. It is not
likely that this great general and conqueror should
have been deposed by foreign armies twice within
fourteen months, and that he should have been twice
sent to an island. The petty complaints which are
attributed to him at St. Helena, about his house, his
wine, his servants, and his title, are also singularly
unsuited to the magnanimity of a great hero, such as
Napoleon is described to us.
The second Restoration of the old Bourbon dy-
nasty, and the subsequent installation of another
Bourbon king, seem likewise events highly improba-
ble, when we consider the anti-royalist frenzy of the
Revolution of 1789. The insurrections, moreover,
by which Charles X. and Louis Philippe are related
to have been deposed, are mere repetitions, with
variations, of similar events in the Great Revolution.
The coup d’état of the 2nd December is plainly
a mere copy, by a clumsy annalist, of the 18th
Brumaire.
These general indications of a hypothesis for the
reconstruction of modern French history are frankly
commended to the reader's consideration. Those
who are imbued with the principles of the Egypto-
logical method will doubtless discern other confirma-
tions of it in the vulgar narrative.
( 3o )
Our illustrations of the Egyptological method
would be incomplete, if its application to some great
building or monument were not exemplified. A
fitting instance may be found in the churches of
St. Peter's at Rome, and St. Paul’s in London, which
have so many features in common, that their sepa-
rateness can scarcely be maintained. Both are built
in the modern classical style; St. Peter's is in the
chief city of Italy—St. Paul’s, in the metropolis
of England. St. Peter's is near the Tiber—St.
Paul's is near the Thames. The architect of St.
Paul's was Sir Christopher Wren—the contriver of
St. Peter's was Michel Angelo Buonarroti. There
is little difference between Christopher, the strong-
limbed saint who carries the Saviour on his back,
and the warlike archangel who spears the prostrate
Satan : wren, a little bird, the favorite of heaven,”
is only a variation of a winged angel: while Buon-
arroti is manifestly only a decorative epithet for an
architect, who invents convenient means of transport
for large masses of stone. Under the operation of
:
•
:
:
* “A robin and a wren -
Are God Almighty's cock and hen.' .
This proverbial rhyme is cited and illustrated in Brand's
Popular Antiquities, vol. iii. p. 192, ed. Bohn, 1849. The wren
was considered the female of the robin ; and these two birds
were believed to perform the pious office of scattering leaves
over an unburied body. This belief is alluded to in Webster's
tragedy of Vittoria Coromboma :
“Call for the robin redbreast and the wren,
Since o'er shady groves they hover,
And with leaves and flowers do cover
The friendless bodies of unburied men.’
Act W. Sc. i.
( 31 )
this dissolving method, all separate individuality of
these noted buildings disappears.
The examples of hypothetical reconstruction,
which have been adduced, are sufficient to exemplify
the application of the method to modern history,
and to establish its importance when so applied.
The number of these examples is small, but the
extent of the applicability of the method is large.
It is scarcely too much to say that all modern
history will be re-cast, that its entire face will be
changed, if it should be consistently subjected to
these processes.
It may moreover be anticipated that modern history
will become the subject of a series of successive hy-
potheses; that historical theories will succeed one
another, like annual harvests ; and that each year a
new crop will be gathered into our libraries. The
transmutations which modern history would thus un-
dergo, would not be mere alterations of character, as
the conversion of Richard III. into a mild and bene-
volent king, or of Mary Queen of Scots into a wife
distinguished by her domestic virtues; but an en-
tire reconstruction of the narrative. History, thus
treated, will emerge from that servile adherence to
routine, from that dull monotony, which is inherent
in the received method ; it will, like the rainbow,
be varied in its hues; it will constantly offer new
combinations of incident, and thus afford new enjoy-
ment, as well as new instruction.
THE END.
LONDON ?
PRINTED BY GEORGE PHIPPs, RANELAGH STREET,
EATON SQUARE,