He is right to note the parallels in modern French history - the cults both of Joan of Arc and of Charles de Gaulle, especially the latter, bear examination alongsides that of Napoleon. One might mention the interwar reputation of Petain as well as the incarnation of the French spirit at Verdun. Napoleon's significance can't be underrated. My only quibble with this volume lies not in the account of the history - but the implication that such imagining of politics through a historical figure is a unique French preoccupation - think of the way that British Conservatives squabble over the figure of Winston Churchill, how American conservatives discuss Ronald Reagen or Pakistanis regard Jinnah, Turks Attaturk for that matter. These historical figures become metaphors by which we discuss present politics- just like Napoleon was for the 19th Century French. Just like Napoleon, Churchill say has become associated with causes which he, a British Imperialist to the core, would never have understood. The historical dangers are evident- and Hazareesingh may be right that Napoleon's cult has contributed to the illiberalism of French liberalism - but he is wrong to insist that this is a uniquely French phenomenon. The content of the myth, not the fact of having myths itself, explains that perception. http://gracchii.blogspot.com/2007/03/legend-of-napoleon.html
My only quibble with this volume lies not in the account of the history - but the implication that such imagining of politics through a historical figure is a unique French preoccupation - think of the way that British Conservatives squabble over the figure of Winston Churchill, how American conservatives discuss Ronald Reagen or Pakistanis regard Jinnah, Turks Attaturk for that matter. These historical figures become metaphors by which we discuss present politics- just like Napoleon was for the 19th Century French.
Just like Napoleon, Churchill say has become associated with causes which he, a British Imperialist to the core, would never have understood. The historical dangers are evident- and Hazareesingh may be right that Napoleon's cult has contributed to the illiberalism of French liberalism - but he is wrong to insist that this is a uniquely French phenomenon. The content of the myth, not the fact of having myths itself, explains that perception.
http://gracchii.blogspot.com/2007/03/legend-of-napoleon.html
The full sized version is here, and this spectacular graph is really worth the visit... One of the first synthetic maps of its type. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Numerous shreds of evidence prove that Beethoven was not permanently alienated from Napoleon in the years following 1804. In 1824, the composer went to a coffeehouse with Karl Czerny. Czerny found a newspaper on a table containing an announcement for Sir Walter Scott's Life of Napoleon. "Napoleon!" Beethoven cried. "Formerly I disliked him. Now I think quite differently." [16] ... On hearing news of Napoleon's death in exile on St. Helena on May 5, 1822, Beethoven remarked, "I have already composed the proper music for that catastrophe." ... for a Viennese composer "dedicating to Napoleon was taboo" while dedicating to rulers of states allied to Austria "was the regular thing to do." [30] Beethoven toyed with the idea of relocating to Paris. The French capital might offer greener pastures, and dedication of a symphony to the First Consul could facilitate the move. For the same reason, Beethoven dedicated a new sonata for violin and piano to Rodolphe Kreutzer and Louis Adam "as the first violinist and pianist in Paris." [31] The composer's decision to stay in Vienna caused him to change his mind about dedicating the work to Napoleon and to title it "Bonaparte." Prince Joseph Franz Lobkowitz was willing to pay him a sizable sum if he dedicated the symphony to him. Ries wrote to music publisher Nikolaus Simrock on 22 October 1803, "[Beethoven] wants very much to dedicate it to Bonaparte; if not, since [Prince] Lobkowitz wants [the rights to] it for half a year and is willing to give 400 ducats for it, he will title it Bonaparte." [32] ... Faced with the problem of how to date the Ries episode [scratching out Napoleon's name], most writers have dated it to May 1804 when news reached Vienna that Napoleon had decided to become Emperor. However, why did Beethoven revoke the dedication in May and then write on 26 August that the symphony was "really entitled Bonaparte?" [36] http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/scholarship98/c_eroica.html
... On hearing news of Napoleon's death in exile on St. Helena on May 5, 1822, Beethoven remarked, "I have already composed the proper music for that catastrophe."
... for a Viennese composer "dedicating to Napoleon was taboo" while dedicating to rulers of states allied to Austria "was the regular thing to do." [30]
Beethoven toyed with the idea of relocating to Paris. The French capital might offer greener pastures, and dedication of a symphony to the First Consul could facilitate the move. For the same reason, Beethoven dedicated a new sonata for violin and piano to Rodolphe Kreutzer and Louis Adam "as the first violinist and pianist in Paris." [31]
The composer's decision to stay in Vienna caused him to change his mind about dedicating the work to Napoleon and to title it "Bonaparte." Prince Joseph Franz Lobkowitz was willing to pay him a sizable sum if he dedicated the symphony to him. Ries wrote to music publisher Nikolaus Simrock on 22 October 1803, "[Beethoven] wants very much to dedicate it to Bonaparte; if not, since [Prince] Lobkowitz wants [the rights to] it for half a year and is willing to give 400 ducats for it, he will title it Bonaparte." [32]
... Faced with the problem of how to date the Ries episode [scratching out Napoleon's name], most writers have dated it to May 1804 when news reached Vienna that Napoleon had decided to become Emperor. However, why did Beethoven revoke the dedication in May and then write on 26 August that the symphony was "really entitled Bonaparte?" [36]
http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/scholarship98/c_eroica.html
