The Daily Dispatch: March 24, 1865., [Electronic resource]

The Life of Julius CÆsar. By Napoleon III. It was announced, several years ago, that the Emperor Napoleon III. was engaged upon a life of Julius Cœsar; but we were not aware that it had been delivered to the printers — so completely are we shut off from the rest of the world — until it was so announced in a contemporary journal a few mornings since. The journal in question even publishes the preface to the work, which we regret we have not space to republish. It has been generally understood that this work was designed to run a parallel between the character, exploits, and times generally, of Julius Cœsar and the career of the first Napoleon, and to extend that parallel to the dynasty that succeeded. The Cœsarean and the Bonapartist maxims of government are shown to be the same; and, indeed, so they are, for they are the maxims of absolutism all the world over.

"In writing history," says the Imperial historian, "what are the means to ascertain the truth? The only way is to follow the rules of logic. Let us take it for granted at once that great results are always due to a great cause; never to a small one--in other words, an incident insignificant in appearance never leads to great results without a pre-existing cause, which has allowed that small incident to achieve a great result. A spark does not create a great conflagration unless it falls upon combustible materials accumulated beforehand."

From such premises he infers that if the Romans, for nearly a thousand years, always came forth from the severest trials that any nation was ever subjected to, superior to their adversaries, it was because there was some general cause which rendered them superior to their enemies, and did not permit defeats and partial cause to interrupt their sway.--In the same way, if the Romans, after having, under the influence of liberty, overrun and subdued nearly the whole of the world then known, have, since the time of Cæsar, been prone to slavery and serfdom in all their degrading forms, it is because there was a general reason for it. "It is," says the Emperor, "because the wants and the interests of a society in labor required other means to be satisfied." In other words, the Roman people were no longer what they had been in by-gone days.--The conquest of Greece, of the East, and of Carthage, had let in a flood of luxury and wealth which had utterly corrupted the people. The civil wars of Scylla and Marius had given ample proof of this before Julius Cæsar came upon the stage. The people had begun to think all about property, and nothing about liberty; and it is a melancholy truth, illustrated by a thousand modern examples, that when the love of money has once gained the ascendant, every evil that can flow from a total depravation of manners is but too apt to follow. If Cæsar had not taken upon himself to be master of Rome, somebody else would have done so — some one among the many military chiefs who who were always hanging about the Republic, full of ambition and talent, and always on the look-out for an opportunity to push their own fortunes. Such a thing as the dictatorship of Cæsar could not have occurred in Rome two hundred years before, while the Republic was engaged in its desperate struggle with Carthage. That it could occur now was owing to no fault of Cæsar himself. He did not mould the fashion of the times. He took advantage of circumstances which he saw gathered to his hand. That was all. Foolish Republican writers have revved against him because he destroyed the liberties of his country. Brutus drew his dagger on him upon that pretext. The fact is, there were no liberties for him to destroy.--They had vanished long before his day. He merely entered and took possession where he found the house vacant.