"No man of sense ought to be ashamed of being called a shopkeeper" - Napoleon

Ronnie Barker as Albert Arkwright

I have recently been re-reading Inside Longwood, and came across an interesting letter in which Barry O'Meara quoted Napoleon's explanation of his description of England as "a nation of shopkeepers".

You were greatly offended with me for calling you a nation of shopkeepers. Had I meant by that that you were a nation of cowards, you would have reason perhaps to have been displeased, though it were ridiculous and contrary to a known truth. But no such thing was ever intended. I meant that you were a nation of merchants and that all your great riches, your grand resources, arose from commerce, and so it does. What else constitutes the riches of England? It is not extent of territory or a numerous population. It is not mines of silver, gold or diamonds. Besides no man of sense ought to be ashamed of being called a shopkeeper (1)

The description, which incidentally did not originate with Napoleon, is still seen as an insult, less specific now perhaps than the original perceived slight on England's military prowess.(2) Napoleon consistently maintained that England was not and never would be a land power, a proposition that few could argue with then or now.(3)

More than that though, the reaction reflects the low esteem accorded in our culture to being "in trade". It is a curious fact that the British upper classes, commercial in origin, beneficiaries of the plundering of the wealth of the Catholic Church, developed an almost feudal aversion to trade and industry as a profession, although as Napoleon rightly said, it was the sole basis of the nation's wealth and power.

Perhaps though Napoleon, like most of us, under-estimated the power of Banking which was assuming unprecedented importance in the world emerging before his very eyes.
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. Barry O'Meara to John Finlaison, 29th June 1817, reproduced in Albert Benhamou, Inside Longwood Barry O'Meara's Clandestine Letters, London 2012
2. Adam Smith used it, and others before him.
3. Even at Waterloo the majority of the troops under Wellington's command were not British.

Napoleon Week on the BBC

In commemoration of the retreat from Moscow in 1812, an event of far more significance than Waterloo, Radio 3 is currently scheduling a number of programmes about Napoleon.

The first, broadcast yesterday (1st December) but still available online, was about Tchaikovsky's patriotic 1812 Overture Tchaikovsky A Dishonest Overture?

Napoleon is also the somewhat unlikely subject of Composer of the Week. As far as I am aware he never composed anything, although he did write a novel, but this daily programme, beginning tomorrow, is about Napoleon's musical tastes and his encouragement of music and the arts.

This evening there is Tolstoy and Napoleon, the first of three literary programmes, to be broadcast on successive Sundays,

which is followed tonight by Napoleon Rising, a play by Manchester born author Anthony Burgess, creator of A Clockwork Orange, who wrote a novel about Napoleon and a script for the Kubrick film that was never made.

Then each evening this week there is a short programme, Napoleon and Me, the first of which is about Julia Blackburn's searching for the "ghost of Napoleon" on St Helena.

Overall it looks like an interesting and slightly unusual perspective on Napoleon. I am particularly looking forward to hearing what Andrea Stuart has to say about the Empress Josephine, one of the most misunderstood women in history.

Perhaps the most interesting revelation from the advance publicity, and news to me at least, is that Richard Wagner attended Napoleon's Second Funeral to report the event for a German newspaper.

It is unfortunate though that someone in the BBC appears to think that Napoleon's ashes were returned from Corsica!

William Hazlitt: "I would like to live to see the downfall of the Bourbons"

William Hazlitt (1778-1830) essayist, romantic and political radical

Hazlitt is little read nowadays, but there has in the past decade or so been a revival of interest in him, particularly among those on the intellectual left. One recent writer, Duncan Wu, has described him as the first modern man and Tom Paulin gave him the accolade of "Liberty's Brightest Star" (1)

One would not guess from reading most encomiums about Hazlitt that Napoleon had no greater supporter in England, not even Lady Holland.

Whilst Lady Holland devoted much time, money, energy and influence in an endeavour to improve Napoleon's comfort on St Helena, Hazlitt, demonised by the Tory press, short of money, like all radicals facing the prospect of imprisonment or deportation in the years of popular discontent and state repression after Waterloo, devoted much of the last years of his life to the writing of a multi volume biography of his hero, a work described later by his dutiful son as "my father's last, largest, and upon the whole, greatest work." (2)

Hazlitt came from a middle class, rationalist, dissenting background. His father was an Irish Unitarian Minister, a fearless radical and a strong supporter of American freedom who had taken his family to spend four years in America after the War of Independence. Hazlitt's mother, Grace Loftus came, like Tom Paine, from an East Anglian dissenting family. Like all dissenters Hazlitt was barred from entering Oxford or Cambridge, but like many received a far superior education in a unitarian academy. Tom Paulin situates Hazlitt firmly in this radical tradition,

the Hazlitts were what were known as 'Real Whigs'. Intellectually, they were the descendants of the Commonwealthmen who briefly made England a republic in the middle of the 17th century. They are in a line of descent from Milton, Harrington and Algernon Sidney, and they carry proudly the scars of the battles those men fought (3)

It is no surprise to find that many brought up in this dissenting tradition, like Lord Lever later on, were prone to have a more favourable view of Cromwell and Napoleon than the Tory historians whose different prejudices have shaped our understanding. For Hazlitt like other radicals such as Henry Hunt and Cobbett, the choice was clear, Napoleon for all his faults was the only force standing between the "legitimate kings" and their ancient prey, mankind. In a letter to a publisher Hazlitt declared

I thought all the world agreed with me at present that Bonaparte was better than the Bourbons, or that a tyrant was better than tyranny." (4)

Napoleon's return from Elba was to Hazlitt

a blow in the face of tyranny and hypocrisy, the noblest that ever was struck. (5)

Similarly,

The plea that the French, in siding with Bonaparte, would prefer war and despotism to peace and liberty is a singular one.(6)

and Napoleon's trimphal march on Paris in 1815 was

.. the greatest instance ever known of the power created by one man over opinion .. it was one man armed with the rights of a people against those who had robbed them of all natural rights, and gave them leave to breathe by charter .. Buonaparte seemed from his first landing to bestride the country like a Colossus, for in him rose up once more the prostrate might and majesty of man, and the Bourbons like toads or spiders, got out of the way of the huge shadow of the Child Roland of the Revolution. (7)

After this Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo could be seen only as a great disaster for mankind and for the cause of liberty. The restoration of the Bourbons and the Divine Right of Kings was an abomination, and Hazlitt and fellow radicals could not see how it could be described as anything else. (8)

In one of his essays Hazlitt outlined what he believed a true just peace would look like: an independent Poland, opposition to the subjugation of Norway by Sweden, immediate abolition of the slave trade, Austrian relinquishment of "unjust aggrandisement in Italy", "Saxony should not share a fate similar to Poland", and concessions should be made by England regarding her exclusive claims of maritime supremacy, "found to be rather galling to the feelings of other nations." (9)

Like other radicals Hazlitt regarded the imprisonment of Napoleon after Waterloo as a stain on English history and the English character.

It is peculiar to the English to consider their enemies as self-convicted criminals(10)

Hazlitt saw this as revenge by those whose only merit was "being born to power" on all those who would challenge them.

The next thing (had not Sir Hudson answered the purpose equally well) to have caged Bonaparte with a baboon to 'mow and chatter at him;' or to have had him up to the hallberts not pulling off his hat to the governor or his aide-de-camp; and there are people to be found who would have approved of this treatment mightily.(11)

So, having completed his major work on his hero Napoleon, having witnessed the fall of the hated Bourbons in the July Revolution, but fearing that things would as in 1815 "go back again", Hazlitt died in Soho on 18th September 1830, his last words apparently being, "Well, I've had a happy life." (12)
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tom Paulin, "Liberty's Brightest Star",The Guardian 6 June 1998
2. Preface to The Life of Napoleon, dated May 1st 1852.
3. Paulin, Guardian, 6 June 1998. Also Tom Paulin, William Hazlitt's Radical Style (Faber 1998)
4. Augustine Birrell, William Hazlitt, (1902, reprinted 1970)
5. Life of Napoleon Vol IV p.100 Vol IV Second Edition.
6. Life of Napoleon Vol IV p. 101
7. Life of Napoleon Vol IV p.119
8. Christopher Salvesen, "A Master of Regret" in William Hazlitt ed. Harold Bloom, (NY 1986)
9. Political Essays 1818 by William Hazlitt, pp 74-5. Interestingly he called for the abolition of the slave trade, but not of slavery itself.
10. William Hazlitt, Life Of Napoleon, Vol IV p. 249
11. Life of Napoleon Vol IV p.264
12. Birrell pp 219-220

Press Freedom on St Helena

Julian Cairns-Wicks, former Councillor, regular contributor to St Helena Independent

I have from time to time covered the tribulations of the St Helena Independent, including the arrest of ts editor, its demise following the cut off of Government advertising, and then its quick resurrection. At times I have wondered whether the problems portrayed therein were not a tad exaggerated, but I had no knowledge of the history of the press on the island.

My thanks to fellow blogger John Grimshaw for pointing out to me an article on censorship on St Helena in a 1996 copy of Wirebird, the magazine published by the Friends of St Helena.(1)

The Wirebrid article quoted a local journalist who said he had to

"cover up in various ways things that have happened. People know, but we've had to try and clear the air a little bit. There have been lots of times when I'd wanted to get to grips with things, and things have come my way which I wanted to use, but couldn't."

This was not censorship, but "the proper management of a Government resource", argued John Perrot, the Chief Secretary.

"If you were running Heinz baked beans and you had a house magazine, you would not allow a member of your staff to rubbish the production line management system in your house magazine,"

The Foreign Office however, contrary to experience on the ground, assured those concerned that "Radio St Helena is not subject to any statutory control." This carefully worded statement was probably legally true, but carefully avoided the realities of power on a small Government run colony.

Julian Cairns-Wicks featured a great deal in the article. He had in 1990 started an independent news sheet because "questions and comments sent to the Government newspaper and interviews conducted for the radio have not been released," which he considered "an affront to every Saint Helenian". Apparently staff were warned not to answer his questions, and even visitors were warned not to talk to him. He duly resigned from the Legislative Council on 16 February 1996.

The Wirebird's conclusion, looking ahead to the coming of television, was that

The test of media management is, of course, whether it is for the benefit of governed or, as in St Helena today, the governing.

It also commented that in situations like this the presence of a vibrant but often wildly inaccurate "bush telegraph" was inevitable."

The wirebird article also warned that a

"'free press' could not exist on St Helena today, even if funded by a philanthropist, as the Castle would simply starve it of information.

Despite the struggles of the Independent, it seems to me that some progress has been made since 1996, but Mike Olsson, the Independent's editor would probably point out that it has been and remains rather an uphill struggle.

------------------------------------------------------------

1. "CENSORSHIP ST HELENA-STYLE", wirebird, the journal of the Friends of St Helena, Summer 1996, pp 43-46

St Helena One Man's Island: "He had little time for Napoleon"

Front Cover of Ian Baker's, "St Helena: One Man's Island" (1)

I have recently been reading Ian Baker's interesting and beautifully written book on St Helena. The first few paragraphs of the Introduction hooked me

Islands are special places. They are finite, complete. They are of the sea, and because of that, their land has added value.

An island can become part of you, though perhaps not you part of it.

An island allows you to stop and stare, to look anew at things with which you're familiar , and to find the things with which you are'nt. It gives you chances to look more closely at yourself."

He has woven together a fascinating account of St Helena, rooted in his unrivalled knowledge of its geology, which began with a lengthy research visit in the early 1960's.

Created over a period of millions of years from volcanic eruptions in the mid-Atlantic rift, which ceased in St Helena's case about seven or eight million years ago, it is at its longest only ten miles across, about the size of Greater Manchester he tells us, but at its base, deep below the surface of the Atlantic, it is eighty miles across, and higher than Mont Blanc before it breaks the water's surface.

One Man's Island might perhaps be seen as an early example of what is coming to be known as "Big History", an approach which gives homo sapiens a less privileged position in the story of our planet. Such an approach presents challenges when you are telling the story of a small remote island largely unknown apart from its association with the captivity of the legendary Emperor of the French.

"One Man" and Napoleon

Please don't get me wrong. I've as much time as the next for Napoleon, probably a lot more. But there is much more to this island than even that special bird of passage. (2)

So in his attempt to focus on the bigger picture, Ian Baker enlists the support of Charles Darwin, certainly focused on far greater forces, who during his short stay on St Helena in 1836 never bothered to visit Napoleon's tomb and, as the author says, probably "didn't have a great deal of time for Napoleon".

Similarly he is able to call on the the first man to sail around the world single handedly, Joshua Slocum, who presumably had had time enough to think about more fundamental things. Slocum, with some justification, described St Helena as "an island of tragedies", but added with a sting in the tail, "tragedies that have been lost sight of in wailing over the Corsican." (3)

Ian Baker is I think on shakier ground when he tells us, "Gorrequer certainly had little time for Napoleon" , a conclusion based on the fact that in his long diary entry on May 5th 1821 Gorrequer did not mention Napoleon, and on the next day referred to him as defunct Neighbour". It is impossible to know precisely what he thought of Napoleon, and it doesn't much matter, but while Gorrequer's diary is full of venom directed at Hudson Lowe, Lady Lowe and Sir Thomas Reade, I cannot recall any negative comments about Napoleon. Ian Baker also somewhat misleadingly describes Gorrequer's nickname for Lowe as "Chief". He certainly used it at times, but far more common was the sobriquet "Mach", short for Machiavelli, which throws rather a different light on Gorrequer's sympathies! (4)

I also have my doubts about the rather sweeping conclusion as to why Longwood was allowed to deteriorate after Napoleon's death:

"When Napoleon died in exile in 1821, most of the world felt that he had got no more than his just desserts. It is all too easy to see Napoleon, the great leader, in hindsight, but at the time he was hated, feared and vilified. Many would rather the Prussians had taken him after Waterloo, and executed him, as they had wanted to." (5)

Having read this one might be surprised to hear of the large numbers who queued up to see Napoleon's body after his death, the crowd that attended his funeral, and the steady stream of visitors to his grave in succeeding years. It was indeed the fuss about Napoleon, rather than Napoleon himself, which Darwin commented on. There would of course not have been that fuss had Napoleon not had significant support in England and the New World, though not of course among the absolute monarchs who wielded power on the continent and for a time at least felt more secure that Napoleon was gone, and wished that he would be soon forgotten.

As for the neglect of Longwood, the house itself was in a state of dilapidation and presumably would have been demolished had Napoleon lived and moved into New Longwood House. Unlike the Valley of the Tomb, which was in private hands and earned a reasonable income for its owners, ownership was in the hands of the East India Company, and clearly it had neither commercial nor political interest in creating a memorial to Napoleon.

Perhaps though the most questionable section on Napoleon is the description of his removal from the Briars to Longwood. The book paints a picture of Napoleon playing for time, and of Cockburn losing patience with him. According to this version Napoleon was "furious at having to leave the Briars. Cockburn was impassive, either Napoleon moved or he would bring guards to move him. Take it or be taken. Napoleon took it." (6) This version of events had then as now a very satisfying ring for British patriots. All one can say is that there is no support for it in French sources, nor from O'Meara nor indeed from Betsy Balcombe. Those closest to Napoleon were of the view that he was pleased to move to Longwood, and to assemble all his followers in one place. One would like to know the source for this version, but One Man's Island is not that kind of book.

---------------------------------------------------

1. Ian Baker St Helena One Man's Island (Wilton 65, 2004)
2. op cit p 101
3. op cit p 113
4. op cit p 164
5. op cit p 119
6. op cit p 62