# Napoleon

*The Urth list — 3 messages, 3 voices, 15 Oct 2002*

<https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3486>

> Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright
> in each message remains with the person who wrote it.
> Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original
> archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than
> retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.

---

### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
*15 Oct 2002, 20:09*

You know, the whole business about "why Napoleon kept his hand in his vest,"
according to _any_ biography, is a huge red herring ... he did not (as far
as I can tell) habitually go about with his hand in his vest. There's this
one portrait where he's posed that way; it happens to be the most famous of
all his portraits. But if you tour, say, the Louvre, you'll see a number of
other contemporary paintings, such as David's painting of Napoleon Crowning
the Empress Josephine, in which his hands are in plain view. 

So ... what does this say about Den?

---

### Michael Straight
*16 Oct 2002, 05:23 · follows Dan'l Danehy-Oakes*

> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
> You know, the whole business about "why Napoleon kept his hand in his vest,"
> according to _any_ biography, is a huge red herring ... he did not (as far
> as I can tell) habitually go about with his hand in his vest.

> So ... what does this say about Den?

That he was the sort of youth who was a pedantic know-it-all and people
would get offended because they thought he was smarting off?

"Why did Napoleon keep his hand in his vest?"

"Gee, I don't know."

"Well, actually he didn't..."

(eyes roll)

-Rostrum

---

### Roy C. Lackey
*16 Oct 2002, 16:47 · follows Michael Straight*

> Dan'l wrote:
> You know, the whole business about "why Napoleon kept his hand in his
> vest,"
> according to _any_ biography, is a huge red herring ... he did not (as far
> as I can tell) habitually go about with his hand in his vest. There's this
> one portrait where he's posed that way; it happens to be the most famous of
> all his portraits. But if you tour, say, the Louvre, you'll see a number of
> other contemporary paintings, such as David's painting of Napoleon Crowning
> the Empress Josephine, in which his hands are in plain view.

That "most famous of all his portraits" is presumably the one he posed for
in 1810, also painted by Jacques Louis David, court painter to the Emperor
of the French. It shows him with his right hand in his white waistcoat at
about the level of his stomach. The mickey mouse set of encyclopedias I have
to hand (_World Book_, 1977) shows that painting, and another by Jean
Meissonier, of Napoleon on a white horse at the head of his army as it
retreated from Moscow. In this second painting he also has his right hand
situated the same way, only this time inside his greatcoat. It's been a long
time now, but I'm pretty sure I had heard of Napoleon's penchant for posing
that way, or at least of being portrayed that way, before I read PEACE, so
the notion had to have come from somewhere, even if it wasn't true. What was
the popular explanation? Weer's "innocent remark" to visitors' queries about
the hand "invariably offended". Sex, religion, and politics are the subjects
most likely to offend a wide variety of people.

> So ... what does this say about Den?

That he is an unreliable narrator? Or that Wolfe suffered from the same
popular misconception as a lot of other people.

Curiously, that same encyclopedia says: "Napoleon had an unimpressive
appearance, but he carried himself well. He stood slightly below average
height." Those are almost the same words Weer used to describe Smart:
"Beyond that there was nothing remarkable in his appearance: he was of just
under average height, . . .". (114)

-Roy

---