On the other hand, Paul Stock’s debate brings about the idea that Napoleon’s actions are not what lead people into believing that he is a hero or a villain, rather, the “interest in Bonaparte is driven by aesthetic and philosophical concerns: especially the question of whether Napoleon is an ordinary man ‘within’ history, or a semi-allegorical personage” (Stock 1). Stock further dwells into talking about how the perception of Napoleon as a hero or a villain was not based “along a political or chronological narrative”, but rather through romanticism through the British. Overall, Stock believes that Napoleon is “indeed ‘captive’ of Romantic imaginations”, which especially shown by Byron, who “calls him ‘Conqueror and Captive of the earth’ (Childe
…show more content…
Similar to Phillip Dwyer’s idea, Paul Stock presents the possibility that Napoleon interpreted himself in such a way that the world would have to see him as a “savior” like individual. However, unlike Dwyer, Stock addresses that what allowed “Romantics to appropriate Napoleon for themselves is the inconsistency of his image creation” (Stock 20). The Romantics had an idea of Napoleon, but used their own interpretations to mold how they viewed him. Unlike Dwyer, who portrayed that Napoleon used propaganda to have individuals blindly respect him, Stock has brought about the idea that Napoleon was viewed as a hero due to viewing different interpretations due to the inconsistency of how they have seen him. Napoleon himself “was so preoccupied with using circumstances to fashion his self-presentation, that he could not achieve any stability of image” (Stock 20). Stock addresses that over time, there were many changes on opinion of Napoleon because he never truly cemented an opinion about himself, and rather, simply played with the circumstances he was involved with at the time. However, “this dual aspect of Napoleon’s legacy- this combined mastery, and insecurity, of self-image- fascinates and inspires the Romantics” (Stock 21). The fascination and admiration of Napoleon is due to this …show more content…
The opinions on whether Napoleon Bonaparte was a hero or a villain constantly changed during his life, through both the French, as well as internationally. The English had seen Napoleon as a tyrant, especially during his reign, while the French considered him a hero due to his accomplishments toward France. However, according to Dwyer, when he was overthrown and exiled, Napoleon was not very well liked, as it had seemed like he was not a hero anymore because he was finally defeated. Yet, when Napoleon returned from exile, the French did not like the new ruling, and Napoleon’s return was a blessing for the French, and became an instant hero once again. Yet, tensions that led to the loss at Waterloo created Napoleon into a failed hero, almost as a villain. Yet, even though Napoleon was regarded as a villain after he was exiled for a second time after the loss of Waterloo, his memoirs brought about feelings of adequacy and brought in the sentimental value of Napoleon, and his regard as a villain had almost disappeared, and the French began to look back at his accomplishments instead of his failures. Even the British, who had so long viewed him as a tyrant, began to romanticize him, shown throughout Paul Stock’s entire argument in the debate. However, historians have also had radical changes on their ideas on Napoleon as time has gone on, shown by Phillip Dwyer and
Similar to Phillip Dwyer’s idea, Paul Stock presents the possibility that Napoleon interpreted himself in such a way that the world would have to see him as a “savior” like individual. However, unlike Dwyer, Stock addresses that what allowed “Romantics to appropriate Napoleon for themselves is the inconsistency of his image creation” (Stock 20). The Romantics had an idea of Napoleon, but used their own interpretations to mold how they viewed him. Unlike Dwyer, who portrayed that Napoleon used propaganda to have individuals blindly respect him, Stock has brought about the idea that Napoleon was viewed as a hero due to viewing different interpretations due to the inconsistency of how they have seen him. Napoleon himself “was so preoccupied with using circumstances to fashion his self-presentation, that he could not achieve any stability of image” (Stock 20). Stock addresses that over time, there were many changes on opinion of Napoleon because he never truly cemented an opinion about himself, and rather, simply played with the circumstances he was involved with at the time. However, “this dual aspect of Napoleon’s legacy- this combined mastery, and insecurity, of self-image- fascinates and inspires the Romantics” (Stock 21). The fascination and admiration of Napoleon is due to this …show more content…
The opinions on whether Napoleon Bonaparte was a hero or a villain constantly changed during his life, through both the French, as well as internationally. The English had seen Napoleon as a tyrant, especially during his reign, while the French considered him a hero due to his accomplishments toward France. However, according to Dwyer, when he was overthrown and exiled, Napoleon was not very well liked, as it had seemed like he was not a hero anymore because he was finally defeated. Yet, when Napoleon returned from exile, the French did not like the new ruling, and Napoleon’s return was a blessing for the French, and became an instant hero once again. Yet, tensions that led to the loss at Waterloo created Napoleon into a failed hero, almost as a villain. Yet, even though Napoleon was regarded as a villain after he was exiled for a second time after the loss of Waterloo, his memoirs brought about feelings of adequacy and brought in the sentimental value of Napoleon, and his regard as a villain had almost disappeared, and the French began to look back at his accomplishments instead of his failures. Even the British, who had so long viewed him as a tyrant, began to romanticize him, shown throughout Paul Stock’s entire argument in the debate. However, historians have also had radical changes on their ideas on Napoleon as time has gone on, shown by Phillip Dwyer and