Buonaparte prevailed over all the hostile States in turn, _except England_; in the zenith of his power, his fleets were swept from the sea, _by England_; his troops always defeat an equal, and frequently even a superior number of those of any other nation, _except the English_; and with them it is just the reverse; twice, and twice only, he is personally engaged against an _English commander_, and both times he is totally defeated; at Acre, and at Waterloo; and to crown all, _England_ finally crushes this tremendous power, which had so long kept the continent in subjection or in alarm; and to the _English_ he surrenders himself prisoner! Thoroughly national, to be sure! It _may_ be all very true; but I would only ask, _if_ a story _had_ been fabricated for the express purpose of amusing the English nation, could it have been contrived more ingeniously? It would do admirably for an epic poem; and indeed bears a considerable resemblance to the Iliad and the Æneid; in which Achilles and the Greeks, Æneas and the Trojans, (the ancestors of the Romans) are so studiously held up to admiration. Buonaparte's exploits seem magnified in order to enhance the glory of his conquerors; just as Hector is allowed to triumph during the absence of Achilles, merely to give additional splendour to his overthrow by the arm of that invincible hero. Would not this circumstance alone render a history rather _suspicious_ in the eyes of an acute critic, even if it were not filled with such gross improbabilities; and induce him to suspend his judgment, till very satisfactory evidence (far stronger than can be found in this case) should be produced? Is it then too much to demand of the wary academic[20] a suspension of judgment as to the "life and adventures of Napoleon Buonaparte?" I do not pretend to _decide_ positively that there is not, nor ever was, any such person; but merely to propose it as a _doubtful_ point, and one the more deserving of careful investigation, from the very circumstance of its having hitherto been admitted without inquiry. Far less would I undertake to decide what is or has been the real state of affairs. He who points out the improbability of the current story, is not bound to suggest an hypothesis of his own;[21] though it may safely be affirmed, that it would be hard to invent any one more improbable than the received one. One may surely be allowed to hesitate in admitting the stories which the ancient poets tell, of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions being caused by imprisoned giants, without being called upon satisfactorily to account for those phenomena.