The Death of Napoleon by Simon Leys, foresees the aftermath of Napoleon life if he were to escape from St Helena.

Authors Avatar by metc94 (student)

Good afternoon class and Mrs. Balfour,

The “Death of Napoleon” by Simon Leys, foresees the aftermath of Napoleon life if he were to escape from St Helena. Within the text, Simon Leys portrays Napoleon with dark humor, irony, mockery but also compassion and sympathy in certain areas.  Leys novella however, has left many interpretations open from discussion, which can lead the original intention far away from what was first considered.

To begin with, Michael Thomas states that Leys' novella concerns itself with how elusive true identity can be. This is an agreeable view, indeed much of the text centers on the tension between Napoleon, the unlikely bald fritterer and his mythic counterpoint who obscures his companions from recognizing him. This duality of identity comes to a head, in the Chapter the Night Empire, when he is faced with a number of grotesque parodies of himself, who present an image of himself of greater likeness of Napoleon than himself. “ This miserable wreck presented an imagine of his model a thousand times more faithful, more worthy and more convincing than the unlikely bald fruiter who, seated beside him, was examining him with such amassment. Thomas asserts the novella exposes the folly of hero worship; this is shown amply throughout the text. The vanity of Napoleon's schemes is illustrated and the divide between the real Napoleon and the mythic Napoleon is displayed. With this in head, Leys presents Napoleon into three individualistic identities.  The historical Napoleon, the fictional Napoleon and the true Napoleon.  The historical Napoleon which empowers strength, vanity and power. The fictional Napoleon demonstrates nothing but the death of the physical Napoleon, which therefore leaves the true Napoleon to deal with the historical identity of his death.

 Moreover, Peter Lockett states that in the Death of Napoleon the legend of Napoleon is far greater than the reality. This is a commendable view because it is so aptly evidenced in the scene where Napoleon encounters an imitator who is of far greater likeness to the "Emperor" than himself. The irony that Ley portrays when Napoleon learns of his imitators death is filled with dark humor. It is felt that we do not give sympathy to him and we are to mock him.  A tendency is felt that Napoleon deserved what he got. However Simmons fails when he posits that the portrait of Napoleon by Leys is completely unsympathetic throughout the entire text . In the final scenes of the novella Napoleon's folly is not mocked nor ridiculed but rather painted compassionately. He is making an earnest attempt at setting things right however he is too late. He realizes his wrongdoings and emotions are gone through mockery and dark humor to soft and sympathetic. This could quite lead us to feel guilt of laughing at him and now feeling sympathetic for him. This is evidenced in that the scene is written largely from the perspective of the Ostrich, who views Napoleon in a "softer" light than the audience and the other characters in the novella. Sympathetic emotions are also encounter when he is faced again with the number of grotesque parodies of himself, who are more worthy and faithful than Napoleon himself.

 Furthermore, Jane Kelsey states that in the text Leys suggests that we are defined by the opinions or beliefs of those around us. This is an agreeable view throughout the basis of the book as Napoleon is not recognized as the “great” emperor but more so a living peasant, an anybody, and merely not the legend, the reality once praised and recognized. The appearance of Napoleon and the boatswain is evident through “between his idol and this ugly little man, with his potbelly and knotty knees, and that he was sacrilege to him” The irony of this is shown that no one actual of great importance realize who Napoleon is actually is. Nigger Nicholas and the medical officer can put him back on the great pedestal that he once claimed. It has risen to the point again, that the myth is greater than the legend himself. His is like a forgotten chandelier in a ruined house. He has the ambition of power and greatness but his not being recognized as it. The esteemed individual or the “special” person factor is eliminated. Once again, Leys has made this evidential when Napoleon learns the death of his imitator and quotes “and who would ever recognize him, now that there was no longer anyone to wait for him.  

Join now!

Leys leave finally the unanswered question, of do we have the ability to control our own identity. Unfortunately, Napoleon chooses what defines him. He could have settled into bourgeois prosperity and lived happily with the Ostrich however he let ambition and the desire for power and strength carry him  away to the very end, when in reality at the end of the text, that was not was important. For what is then Leys intention of the whole novella?  It is quite initially what Paul expressed in the opening. “ What a pity to see a mind as great as ...

This is a preview of the whole essay