January 10, 2003
Venice vs Napoleon
When you live amidst history, you are less likely to dismiss it lightly (via Reuters):
Some 200 years after conquering Venice, Napoleon Bonaparte will face trial in the lagoon city accused of stealing some of its artistic treasures and worse.Fair enough; that he was, and that he did. On the other hand, the Venetians hardly have clean hands: San Marco is adorned inside and out with loot from the sack of Constantinople in 1204, including the famed bronze horses (which Napoleon took to Paris) and the so-called Pilastri Acritani.A group of Venetians is mounting a mock trial as part of a campaign to stop a statue of the French emperor going on display in a museum on St Mark's Square, the heart of Venice. . .
Commissioned by Venetian merchants to thank Napoleon for making the city a tax-free port, it stood on St Mark's Square from 1811 to 1814, when Venice fell to the Austrians and it was removed to the nearby island of San Giorgio Maggiore.
Historians then lost track of the statue until it resurfaced at Sotheby's auction house in New York last year, where it was jointly bought by a French association that raises funds for Venice and by the cultural foundation of a Venetian bank.
Their intention, approved by Venice's municipality, was to display the work at the Correr Museum, which is dedicated to the city's history and housed in the "Napoleonic Wing", a structure built on St Mark's Square on Napoleon's orders.
Some Venetians see Napoleon as a tyrant who robbed the city of its independence before looting it and destroying some of its architectural gems.
Nonetheless, these statements by one of the Napoleon defenders go a bit far:
"Yes, his troops looted artworks. But many went to museums, not private collections, in line with the ideas of the French Revolution, and most were returned later anyway". . .Seen as improvements by whom? The French overlords? Not by the churches' parishioners or by the inhabitants of the suppressed monasteries and convents, to be sure."Yes, Napoleon had churches and other historic buildings destroyed. But in their place he built other structures that at the time were seen as improvements."
As for Napoleon's looting of artworks, it was truly unprecedented: in its scope, organization, and ideological impetus, it finds its only real parallel in the kleptomania of the Nazis. And though some of the loot was returned (much of the plunder remains in France to this day) it was only thanks to Wellington. What was returned post-Waterloo sometimes took decades to be repatriated, and in many cases suffered grievous harm. Frescoes and panel paintings were transferred to canvas; fragile objects were hauled over the Alps in wagons. The art looted from all over Europe was then paraded around Paris in a grand triumphal procession. That must have been a sight to see -- but hardly good conservation practice.
Posted by David on January 10, 2003 11:57 AM
resentments towards napoleon are due to the coninental system, which he imposed on mainlad europe to attempt to hurt England. he also fed and paid his large conscript armies by foraging and allowing looting. one of the main reasons Wellington was able to win over the spanish, while Marshal Marmount and Soult were plagued by spanish guerillas. when Napoleon came to power in France the people were starving and the econmy plummeting. he fixed this. but, if you base what he did in his own country to fix the economy and infastructure, which eventhough for his own ends, towards what was done in other places structures had purpose. he did no build to be grandoise a la the romans, but rather for purpose what ever the reason. any invading army ha some looting. Americans looted the Nazis in world war 2 who in turn stole from the Jews, Gypsys, blacks, catholics, poles, French, Spanish, etc. albeit most was returned some americans managed to horde it away. so resentment is due, but remember what was done as a opposed to what may have been done
Posted by: jim on September 6, 2005 6:25 PM
gmail.com