Most of the literature that has its origin in the life and career of a
great man may be grouped and classified under two heads: history and
biography. The part that relates to the man's actions, and to the
influence that such actions have had in shaping the destinies of peoples
and states, belongs in the one class; while the part that derives its
interest mainly from the man's personality, and deals chiefly with the
mental and moral characteristics of which his actions were the outcome,
goes properly into the other. The value of the literature included in
these two classes depends almost wholly upon truth; that is, upon the
precise correspondence of the statements made with the real facts of the
man's life and career. History is worse than useless if it does not
accurately chronicle and describe events; and biography is valueless and
misleading if it does not truly set forth individual character.
There is, however, a kind of great-man literature in which truth is
comparatively unimportant, and that is the literature of popular legend
and tradition. Whether it purports to be historical or biographical, or
both, it derives its interest and value from the light that it throws
upon the temperament and character of the people who originate it,
rather than from the amount of truth contained in the statements that
it makes about the man.
The folk-tales of Napoleon Bonaparte herewith presented, if judged from
the viewpoint of the historian or the biographer, are absurdly and
grotesquely untrue; but to the anthropologist and the student of human
nature they are extremely valuable as self-revelations of national
character; and even to the historian and the biographer they have some
interest as evidences of the profoundly deep impression made by
Napoleon's personality upon two great peoples--the Russians and the
French.
The first story, which is entitled "Napoleonder," is of Russian origin,
and was put into literary form, or edited, by Alexander Amphiteatrof of
St. Petersburg. It originally appeared as a feuilleton in the St.
Petersburg "Gazette" of December 13, 1901. As a characteristic specimen
of Russian peasant folk-lore, it seems to me to have more than ordinary
interest and value. The treatment of the supernatural may seem, to
Occidental readers, rather daring and irreverent, but it is perfectly in
harmony with the Russian peasant's anthropomorphic conception of Deity,
and should be taken with due allowance for the educational limitations
of the story-teller and his auditors. The Russian muzhik often brings
God and the angels into his folk-tales, and does so without the least
idea of treating them disrespectfully. He makes them talk in his own
language because he has no other language; and if the talk seems a
little grotesque and irreverent, it is due to the low level of the
narrator's literary culture, and not to any intention, on his part, of
treating God and the angels with levity. The whole aim of the story is a
moral and religious one. The narrator is trying to show that sympathy
and mercy are better than selfish ambition, and that war is not only
immoral but irrational. The conversation between God, the angels, and
the Devil is a mere prologue, intended to bring Napoleon and Ivan-angel
on the stage and lay the foundation of the plot. The story-teller's keen
sense of fun and humor is shown in many little touches, but he never
means to be irreverent. The whole legend is set forth in the racy,
idiomatic, highly elliptical language of the common Russian muzhik, and
is therefore extremely difficult of translation; but I have tried to
preserve, as far as possible, the spirit and flavor of the original.
The French story was first reduced to writing--or at least put into
literary form--by Honoré de Balzac, and appeared under the title of "The
Napoleon of the People" in the third chapter of Balzac's "Country
Doctor." It purports to be the story of Napoleon's life and career as
related to a group of French peasants by one of his old soldiers--a man
named Goguelat. It covers more time chronologically than the Russian
story does, and deals much more fully and circumstantially with
historical incidents and events: but it seems to me to be distinctly
inferior to the Russian tale in power of creative imagination, unity of
conception, skill of artistic treatment, and depth of human interest.
The French peasant regards Napoleon merely as a great leader and
conqueror, "created to be the father of soldiers," and aided, if not
directly sent, by God, to show forth the power and the glory of France.
The Russian peasant, more thoughtful by nature as well as less excitable
and combative in temperament, admits that Napoleon was sent on earth by
God, but connects him with one of the deep problems of life by using him
to show the divine nature of sympathy and pity, and the cruelty,
immorality, and unreasonableness of aggressive war. The only feature
that the two tales have in common is the recognition of the supernatural
as a controlling factor in Napoleon's life. The French peasant believes
that he had a guiding star; that he was advised and directed by a
familiar spirit in the shape of a "Red Man"; and that he was saved from
dangers and death by virtue of a secret compact with the Supreme Being.
The Russian peasant asserts that he was created by the Devil, and that
God, after having given him a soul by accident, first used him as a
means of punishing the Russian people for their sins, and then made him
really a man by inspiring him with the human feelings of sympathy and
compassion. In the French story Napoleon appears as a great military
leader, whose life and career reflect honor and glory upon France. In
the Russian story he is merely the leading actor in a sort of moral
drama, or historical mystery-play, intended to show the divine nature of
sympathy and compassion, the immorality of war, and the essential
solidarity and brotherhood of all mankind.