INTRODUCTION

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