At first glimpse, the oculus is instantly drawn to the bare Arab adult male on the right. His blade is raised in defense mechanism of the Gallic charge ; his left arm cradles a afflicted Mamluk warrior in munificent garb. To the left of the picture is a Gallic soldier progressing on the Rebels with blade raised in obvious purpose, stepping over the organic structure of a fallen indigen who is dressed in classical white robes. At the Centre of the piece is a helmeted hussar, looking up at the Arab warrior with a steely resoluteness ; blade pulled back in expectancy. Underneath him is a turbaned black adult male in the midst of the scrimmage, with a raised sticker in one manus and the caput of a Gallic soldier in the other.
The graduated table of the work is monolithic ( 365 x 500 centimeter ) , and the brushwork is really all right in the classical manner, go forthing small grounds of the coppice shots on the canvas. Beyond the highlighted characters, Girodet employs a reasonably dark pallet of reds and browns, in maintaining with the mundane, grubby force of the scene, and to better stress the chief participants. This combination of light and shade lends the painting a great deepness of field. The light falls from the upper-left of the image plane, but the figures are arranged in such a manner that merely the Mamluk warrior and his Arab defender are to the full illuminated. They are really tempting to the oculus, and Girodet seems to hold taken great attention to put them with much humanity. The bare warrior is depicted in a classically sculpted airs, a expression of sickened horror on his face at the sight of a Gallic offense in the mosque. The bear downing Hussar ‘s face on the other manus, is portrayed in deep shadow under his raised blade arm, befoging his characteristics and therefore bumping his position. Although there is no existent blood depicted in the piece, the flashes of ruddy on the hussar ‘s pants and the Mamluk ‘s cloak provide a dramatic suggestion.
It is of import for us non to presume the creative person ‘s thought or enforce our ain moral docket on the piece. However, it is hard non to come off from the picture with our understandings tilting towards the alien figures. This was doubtless non the commissioned purpose, but Girodet ‘s corruption seems to be rather apparent. The most obvious differentiation between the two chief supporters is that the bare warrior is in a defensive stance, and protecting the Mamluk into the deal, while the Gallic hussar is really much on the onslaught. In a deformation of Gallic Neoclassicism, Girodet bestows all the desirable properties of classical tradition: courage, honor, trueness, on the autochthonal. Their lighted faces seem to portray the stateliness of all human emotion in this minute of high melodrama, while the hussar, lessened by his ain shadow, is reduced to a cypher for Gallic military aspiration and black cultural neglect. He is violently portrayed, with a single-mindedness of intent and no compassionate facet: A twirling zombi in service to the Empire.
Despite the classical modeling and brushwork of the organic structures, the heightened world and high emotion displayed is of a really Romantic persuasion, and rather unlike the typically cool logic and open propaganda of Napoleonic art. Girodet was positively fascinated by the alien, had Royalist understandings and was rumoured to be homosexual. This all lends weight to the instance for a insurgent reading. The positive portraitures of the Arab and Mamluk warriors besides go against Napoleon ‘s good documented racial dogmatism, which person of Girodet ‘s gustatory sensations may good hold found repugnant.
Comparisons with other commissioned plants of the clip bear out the uncharacteristic nature of Girodet ‘s positive, fervent portraiture of the bare Arab and Mamluk. Gu & A ; eacute ; rin ‘s Bonaparte Excusing the Rebels at Cairo ( 1808 ) presents a really different reading of the Egyptian run, but besides an idealized version in its ain manner. The benevolent Napoleon stands above his new topics, non as a vanquisher, but as their great liberator and conciliator. The Egyptians are dead-eyed and passionless at Napoleon ‘s pess: Like simple kids waiting to be led. The chief exclusion to this is a white-turbaned adult female staring appreciatively up at Napoleon from the multitude. This thought of Napoleon as Jesus, conveying peace and enlightenment, is far more typical of commissioned Napoleonic art, and really far removed from Girodet ‘s portraiture of events.
In the involvement of balance, we should besides see how The Revolt at Cairo may hold been viewed at the clip through more imperialistic eyes. Where a more broad position might see the hussar ‘s ruby onslaught as wading through the blood of the guiltless autochthonal ( the fallen, white appareled figure the hussar is stepping over supports this ) , this picture would besides talk aloud to those still drunk on station radical excitement. They may merely as easy have lauded the hussar for oppressing the enemies of freedom and distributing enlightenment and civilization. The graphic reading of the outstanding exotics could besides be viewed negatively, with the light reflecting down on them non in glorification, but in enlightened opinion of the Arab ‘s brutal nudity, and the Mamluk ‘s weak, self-interested luxury and rumoured gustatory sensation for buggery.
However, with the benefit of history, The Revolt at Cairo appears to be a corruption of the artistic use prevalent throughout Napoleon ‘s calling ; a deliberate or more likely subconscious reversal on Girodet ‘s portion. In add-on to the content and executing of the piece, the fact that the picture was completed over a decennary after the events depicted lends weight to insurgent purposes, as many were weary of war by this clip. Merely the allusions to Gallic military high quality and items such as the beheaded Gallic caput do the undertaking plausible as Napoleonic propaganda at all.
In Stendhal ‘s life, A Life of Napoleon, he is characteristically more defensive of Napoleon ‘s actions in Cairo than Girodet appears to hold been. However, Stendhal seems to be rather conflicted, and in a province of moral flux throughout his history. In remembering the events of the rebellion, Stendhal begins by lauding the virtuousnesss of the Mamluk warriors ( merely as Girodet clearly did in his committee ) . Stendhal speaks really extremely of the Mamluk people after the event, eulogizing them as ‘the most proud and fierce of work forces ‘ ( A Life of Napoleon, p. 37 ) , and mentioning to their ‘sublime bravery ‘ ( A Life of Napoleon, p. 37 ) in an earlier transition. To praise the enemy at the beginning of a defense mechanism of Napoleon ‘s actions seems unusual, and speaks of an interior struggle on Stendhal ‘s portion.
This is non the lone case in Stendhal ‘s study where he displays a struggle between his ain better moral opinion, and his intense esteem of Napoleon as a adult male of fate. He expresses disdain for vindicators who gloss over Napoleon ‘s suppression of the insurgence with claims that this was simply justifiable revenge for the slaughter of Gallic captives in sort. He calls these observers ‘Bourgeois ‘ , and ‘semi-intelligent ‘ ( A Life of Napoleon, p. 38 ) , and seemingly feels that this kind of base reaction would be beneath such a adult male. This is despite Stendhal ‘s ain admittance that Napoleon ‘punished their perfidy with a inhuman treatment that he borrowed from them ‘ ( A Life of Napoleon, p. 38 ) , casually telling the executing of the priests that he felt were responsible for the rebellion. Alternatively of a simple revenge, Stendhal seems to seek with great strength for a baronial justification for these, ‘unfortunate but necessary ‘ ( A Life of Napoleon, p. 38 ) actions on Napoleon ‘s portion, citing ‘salus populi suprema lex esto ‘ [ Let the peoples safety be the supreme jurisprudence ] ( A Life of Napoleon, p. 38 ) . The usage of Latin in Stendhal ‘s defense mechanism of Napoleon is important here, given Napoleon ‘s self-acknowledged Caesar composite and the obvious associations with the aristocracy of ancient Rome.
In trying to explicate Napoleon ‘s behavior in this manner, Stendhal demonstrates his ultimately undeviating support for his leader. However, Napoleon ‘s policy in Egypt of an oculus for an oculus wholly disregards one of the chief post-revolutionary justifications for invasion: The heralding of civilization. Bing an highly intelligent adult male, merely Stendhal ‘s blinkered devotedness could let him to disregard this.
Stendhal is greatly enamoured with Napoleon ‘s undoubted glare, but finds it hard to accommodate his unchained esteem with the ferociousness of Napoleon ‘s methods in Cairo. The intended intent of the transition in A Life of Napoleon is that of a instance for the defense mechanism, but Stendhal ‘s edginess and congratulations of the Mamluks gives it the air of an apology. Stendhal therefore betrays similar scruples to Girodet, despite externally supporting Napoleon ‘s actions.
Word Count – 1485
Mentions
Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson, The Revolt at Cairo, 1810, oil on canvas.
Pierre-Narcisse Gu & A ; eacute ; rin, Bonaparte Excusing the Rebels of Cairo, 1808, oil on canvas.
Stedhal, 2004, A Life of Napoleon. Translated by Roland Grant 1956, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
