Nor are the judgments of mankind less unanimous in reference to his character than his intellect and genius.  He stands out in history in a marked manner with two sides,—­great and little, good and bad.  None can deny him many good qualities.  His industry was marvellous; he was temperate in eating and drinking; he wasted no precious time; he rewarded his friends, to whom he was true; he did not persecute his enemies unless they stood in his way, and unless he had a strong personal dislike for them, as he had for Madame de Stael; he could be magnanimous at times; he was indulgent to his family, and allowed his wife to buy as many India shawls and diamonds as she pleased; he was never parsimonious in his gifts, although personally inclined to economy; he generally ruled by the laws he had accepted or enacted; he despised formalities and etiquette; he sought knowledge from every quarter; he encouraged merit in all departments; he was not ruled by women, like most of the kings of France; he was not enslaved by prejudices, and was lenient when he could afford to be; and in the earlier part of his career he was doubtless patriotic in his devotion to the interests of his country.

Moreover, many of his faults were the result of circumstances, and of the unprecedented prosperity which he enjoyed.  Pride, egotism, tyranny, and ostentation were to be expected of a man whose will was law.  Nearly all men would have exhibited these traits, had they been seated on such a throne as his; and almost any man’s temper would have occasionally given way under such burdens as he assumed, such hostilities as he encountered, and such treasons as he detected.  Surrounded by spies and secret enemies, he was obliged to be reserved.  With a world at his feet, it was natural that he should be arbitrary and impatient of contradiction.  There have been successful railway magnates as imperious as he, and bank presidents as supercilious, and clerical dignitaries as haughty, in their smaller spheres.  Pride, consciousness, and egotism are the natural result of power and flattery in all conditions of life; and when a single man controls the destinies of nations, he is an exception to the infirmities of human nature if he does not seek to bend everything before his haughty will.  There have been many Richelieus, there has been but one Marcus Aurelius; many Hildebrands, only one Alfred; many Ahabs, only one David, one St. Louis, one Washington.

But with all due allowance for the force of circumstances in the development of character, and for those imperial surroundings which blind the arbiters of nations, there were yet natural traits of character in Napoleon which call out the severest reprobation, and which make him an object of indignation and intense dislike among true-minded students of history.  His egotism was almost superhuman, his selfishness was most unscrupulous, his ambition absolutely boundless.  He claimed a monopoly in perfidy and lying; he had no idea of