Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte by Richard Whately
page 58 of 60 (96%)
page 58 of 60 (96%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
whom the accusation lay, strenuously denied it. And it must be
acknowledged that each had very strong presumptions of innocence to urge. It was certainly most _unlikely_ that the Russians should themselves destroy their ancient and venerable capital; and that, too, when they were boasting of having just gained a great victory at Borodino over an army which, therefore, they might hope to defeat again, and to drive out of their city. And it was no less unlikely that the French should burn down a city of which they had possession, and which afforded shelter and refreshment to their troops. This would have been one of the most improbable circumstances of that most improbable (supposed) campaign. To add to the marvel, we are told that the French army nevertheless waited for five weeks, without any object, amid the ashes of this destroyed city, just at the approach, of winter, and as if on purpose to be overtaken and destroyed by snows and frost! However, all the difficulties of the question whether any of these things took place at all, were by most persons overlooked, because the question itself never occurred to them, in their eagerness to decide _who_ it was that burned the city. And at length it comes out that the answer is, NOBODY! THE END. POSTSCRIPT. |
|