Remembering the Fall of Constantinople- 554 years ago

List

l

An unusual volcanic eruption re-visited

Recently I heard from an old friend who has moved to Alaska, and the mention of the volcanoes that stand in sight of him reminded me of the enigmatic `Mt.Katmai' eruption. The eruption of Mt. Katmai Alaska began on a day that in later decades would take on greater immortality, June 6th. But this was not 1944, and the D-Day invasion, but 1912. Of course that year boasted another famous event, the sinking of the RMS Titanic after striking an iceberg.

In fact, Katmai's "eruption" (the reason for the qualifier will be related later on) followed less than two months after that disaster, and coupled with the utter remoteness of Alaska at that time, and the minimal loss of life, probably was one of the factors that caused it to be somewhat forgotten despite the scale of its cataclysm. However, the natural wonder that it produced in its aftermath, "The Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes" is somewhat more familiar to the general public, and imminently so to students of geological processes.

Before describing the event, its worthy to notice that it showcased the rise of a very familiar institution of the present -- National Geographic Magazine. Together with the great and devastating eruptions of Mt. Pelee and Mt. Soufriere in the Caribbean in May 1902, the eruption at Katmai and the expedition to chronicle its wonders would open up a whole new phase in exploration, and six years after result in the creation of a new National Monument in 1918, which in 1980 was upgraded to a National Park.

(Note: to return later, it seems I have lost some of my writing, and have to re-post it, arggh. Going to bed now, apologies).

KATMAI Caldera in modern times. The caldera from the collapsed mountain peak is so huge that not only does it contain a lake, but an entire glacier has formed inside it (upper side bank of caldera in view)which feeds the lake. Sporadic underwater eruptions have occurred since 1912.

America needs a "Damnatio Memoriae" for spree shooters

This week started with the tragic and senseless shooting of more than thirty students at Virginia Tech by a deranged and selfish student himself. Let me preface by saying the other day Dennis Miller opined a most useful and wise outlook -- to `give a pass for the first 48 hours' to any emotional outbursts or frustrated rage at a senseless mass killing, whether a Virginia Tech or 9/11. I think that is most sagacious of Dennis Miller, and have taken it to heart. I put my own hasty comment of that day as it was still happening in that category. Senseless things often trigger frustrated wish to see them speedily corrected. What follows though is not an emotional complaint, but a reasoned proposal. For, in the Virginia Tech shooting the aftermath saw something senseless as well, if not at all in the same magnitude.

Namely, the hasty and almost salivating airing of the culprit's video-taped statement/confession and rantings that he took the time to send to NBC in between two phases of killings. This was a classic case of a killer, a culprit and cretin, seeking to use the media to create and promote some kind of posthumous legacy for himself. There was nothing for `society at large' to learn from such rantings, or `should understand'. It was notoriety-seeking pure and simple, and so shameless as to mail it to NBC. Even worse, the network `fell for it' - much to their subsequent and deserved censure by relatives of victims and the public alike. This kind of `giving a platform' should not be tolerated for the emotion can find echo in others that might not otherwise respond to an abstract event; and in fact, the culprit's "statement" brought up the Columbine high school shootings as a role model. This incident underlines an acute lack we have in our system today -- a way of punishing or otherwise censuring spree-shooting culprits posthumously. Though it can hardly classify as a "deterrent" since the perpetrator is dead in each case, something to discourage or blunt so-called "copycat" crimes is needed. Indeed, there have been reports of such `copycat' threats, fortunately quelled, this past week.

The proposal: spree killers who commit suicide or are slain at the scene should not be named much, but in all subsequent references given a number or similar dismissive reference comprising the date of the crime and demise. No "statements" or "manifestos" should be run, aired, or otherwise disseminated. They should remain in archives, publicly accessible for those who really want to go to the trouble to research it, but not "blasted nationally" across the airwaves. This should carry fines if violated, and could be a bona-fide `after-suicide' punishment. It would also create a certain banality and abstract nature to the crime, give it less notoriety, allowing it to be quickly forgotten and consigned to the mists of the past. This is one way to partly deter repetition, by taking any perceived `reward' or `glamor' out of it. It would not take away any lessons for authorities to learn, but would remove its aura. A footnote burial of the deed, as it were.

We have seen what many have suspected for some time, and that is that certain spree-shootings are inspired as much by precedent as any secondary causes like video-games, bullying, etc. Since they usually shoot themselves, its necessary to find a way to rebuke and otherwise abolish any legacy resulting. In Egyptian and Roman times, there was a process called "Damnatio Memoriae" by which one's name could be effaced and mention separated from any deeds. We need something like that for those who evade justice by taking their life after selfishly killing others, rather than simply killing themselves, which would be unfortunate but unselfish and honest.

- Antony

Tragic, Terrible Story of Crime - Virginia Tech

I am shocked, only two days after posting an example of a noble thief, of a perpetrator with a heart, now this morming we are hearing of a heartless gunman killing as many as 15 students so far at Virgina Tech campus. :(

The gunman should *not* be taken alive, simply shot down upon sight if they send in rescue troopers. A standoff is apparently in progress, and one wonders if it might be necessary to use gas to knock out all before he can kill others. Details are unclear, but history shows that the chance of dashing in to gun down the culprit before he can kill others must be taken. Crack marksman can do so in the wild moment of surprise as they storm in. Let's pray so.

Given the precedent with the type of culprit, will probably commit suicide first.

- Antony

Happy Story for once about a crime...?

This is so unusual I chose to make it a subject about where its vital to not follow the letter of the law, but a nobler spirit of brotherhood.

WFTV has posted a startling surveillance video from a convenience store in Florida, with the caption: "An apologetic Florida thief allowed the store clerk he was robbing to call 911 when the 60-year-old said she thought was having a heart attack. (April 13)"

Click to see video of noble thief.


Not only did he try to call for her on the land line, but let her get her
cell phone when it wouldn't work. He didn't even finish committing the crime as well as letting her call! An announcement should be put on the TV by Governor Jeb Bush if necessary, whoever has the authority, saying, "Whoever you are in this film, you know who you are. Be aware you have been pardoned in absentia for this act. The record has been purged. Forget it and tell no one. You have another chance, turn your life around and sin no more." :) :)

This is especially true if he has no major prior record. There is a good soul there and deserves such a chance in my own opinion, fwiw. With today's news so numbingly pessimistic, I wanted to single this out.

- Antony

Mark Cuban & 9/11 conspiracy theory - A question of ethical sponsorship

At the present time a most interesting and revealing clash involving the movie "Loose Change" -- apparently the latest installment in 9/11 revisionist/re-inventing nonsense -- is raging between Mark Cuban (the owner of both Magnolia Pictures and the Dallas Mavericks) and various TV and radio pundits, not to mention the public. At issue is the fact that Cuban's distributor Magnolia Pictures -- a fine firm -- is going to promulgate and distribute "Loose Change", a pseudo-documentary that purportedly claims 9/11 was an "inside" or government job. What provoked this post is two critical and head-shaking commentaries in the March 28 ,2007 Dallas Morning News written by Mark Davis ("The right to free speech taken too far" p 15A) and James Ragland ("Criticism of Film won't deter Cuban" p 1B) respectively. Both raised signal points that bear attention.

Before going further, it is necessary to clarify a few things. What makes this issue special is not whether the movie's premise has any credibility, but the stance Mark Cuban is taking in reference to it. He has professed to not believe or even support the premise put across in the film, but is backing in the interests of promoting free speech and dialogue. The reasons given are laudable, but on one level show exactly what is so wrong with professional ethics these days, and what really is amiss here. That will be the subject of this post.

First, a note on the film. Allegedly it started life as "fiction, than morphed into a documentary ". That's a progression dubious enough to worry any credible historian. The style of scriptwriting being what it is, its unlikely that it would shed enough of its `fictional' background to carefully make the distinction between what was fiction and what was fact. A "documentary" airs -- or should -- under a higher bar of expectation for accuracy and `just the facts' than some film or dramatization. Its bad enough when taking free liberties with the facts is done with a recent historical event like the JFK assassination (such embroidery and going beyond the constraints of evidence all too common in that subject); its much more serious when it concerns ongoing and "real-time" events like 9/11 and the war started by the Islamic Jihadists. No matter how controversial and debatable the wisdom of the Iraq War is, that controversy and doubt should not spill over too much into evaulating 9/11, though regrettably it has.

Which brings us to the debate about Mark Cuban's role or seeming casual willingness to distribute this film. The arguments about the First Amendment and promoting `free speech and discussion' are sound. It is alright that the film air, and there shouldn't be any question of repression or censorship. The question is who airs it. The fly in this ointment concerns rather the ethics of when a credible person puts their weight behind dubious, and unsound works, and by so doing, gives it an undeserved or unwarranted stature . By his admission, Mark Cuban apparently does not put any stock in "Loose Change" 's premise. This is crucial. It would be better if he did, more consistent. A `documentary' is NOT a drama or novel -- different standards should apply. Why sanction or give any play to a view one judges erroneous, in a culture already overloaded with junk info and assertions? Why throw ones support behind it?

To come straight to the point. There is no shortage of `interpretations and points of view' about 9/11. Valid and real questions exist about the run-up to 9/11, and its catalyst. One overlooked by the media is a simple but revealing one: I for one, would like to hear if the interrogations of Al Qaeda leaders answered why that date and year was chosen, etc. (We were rather low-profile at that time in 01, catalyst seems lacking). Any credible and probing `conspiracy postulation' is indeed worth presenting and exploring, for sometimes they are true. What is NOT worth giving expanded play are less credible, and even thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories. Among these are that 9/11 was "staged" or the involvement of the aircraft faked, etc. The evidence simply does not allow it. There are too many witnesses, too many scientific facts. The only tenable conspiracy theory is that 9/11 was allowed to occur; that it was "an inside job" or staged by the government is nonsense.

I happen to agree with Mark Cuban's defense that "lies in the shadows are far more dangerous than lies you can confront and refute". The problem is that he is not taking into account the dilemma of mass public misinformation and the growing tendency for trusting people to be duped into believing or putting stock into bogus ideas and concepts because personages otherwise of stature and some credit associate with them . Its similar to why junk-science can be such a serious matter -- a scientist tends to inspire more reflexive trust they are sticking to facts than a journalist. Its fine to give the canned line of `the public can judge for itself whether the documentary has merit' and `not going to back away from something just because its controversial'. These are evasions.

It ignores the blatantly obvious fact that the bulk of the working productive public does not have time and the range to "judge" which claimed facts are false and which true. Its hard enough for historians and detective to do so when they have bad witnesses and false evidence . Remember, this is claimed to be a documentary. The public has a right to expect - at least hope - that things presented as fact, as documentary, are at least reasonably true, and not a `string-together' or exercise in hearsay. Especially when it is supported by a trustworthy and respected source. An established writer (non-fiction) has a higher ethical burden to `get the facts straight' than a debate club or round table at a bar for example.

THAT is the issue here, not really the production itself. It can stand or be rebutted on its own terms. Again, I haven't seen or even read a detailed script of the film. It is the fact that Mark Cuban stated that he is essentially giving a platform to a premise "that I don't believe the movie. Not at all." I submit there are many theories and reconstructions far more worthy of mass dissemination and such support, even criticisms and conspiracy theories that might have some legs, but not this. That's why it is hard to put a finger on just what is wrong with this, while straining to make clear are absolutely open to the free debate of ideas. The film is probably a flash in the pan, and not as interesting as the debate about ethical sponsorship and association it has spurred in the Morning News and airwaves.

Mark Davis was absolutely right when he observed, "This is open-mindedness to a crippling fault. Only chaos can result from such undeserved equivalence afforded to society's most pathological views."

That strikes me as exactly the rub, indeed. The prevalence today of a contemptible and research-lazy `intellectual relativism' that puts tabloid subjects on the same bar as an Oxford University Press archaeological report; which is then thoughtlessly taken up by the mass media and blasted everywhere with no context or rebuttal. In the world of research and fact-finding, `benefit of the doubt' is not given up front to just any notion that pops into head or has spicy spin; it has to be earned . It is a fair question why this `up front' platform is being given here. That is the real shame here.

- Antony

A Closer look at Napoleon's Coronation

Scene from "Le Sacre" coronation book shows Napoleon I at the moment of self-crowning on 2 December 1804.

The coronation of Napoleon as Emperor of the French on 2 December 1804 was an event as portentous as it was lavish. Though Napoleon had in fact held that title since the middle of the year, the public ceremony, presided over with Pope Pius VII among those present, confirmed to the world the reality of the transformation of the French Revolution by the charismatic soldier-autocrat. What makes it also significant was it was a republic formally adopting imperial titles and pomp, so reminiscent of the discredited and dethroned French monarchy, that participants saw nothing incongruous in wanting to duplicate the enthronement ceremonies of said former Kings.

An important aspect of this `re-treading' of the former monarchy was the role that its ceremonial and regalia would play. This factor has led to obscure but fascinating confusions regarding the famous "self-crowning" by Napoleon, and some of the artists and historians since, in trying to depict or narrate this moment. The most common involve the fact that Napoleon's crown didn't have a traditional look of converging half-arches surmounted by cross or orb, but was a gold laurel wreath - that diadem-like wreath seen in most imperial portraits of Napoleon is his crown. The other confusion is even more subtle; the role of the so-called "Crown of Charlemagne". Having had cause to research this intriguing matter in the early 90's it is because of one such example I encountered that I decided to write this post.

This website contains such a good and detailed description of the coronation that it invites praise, and hopefully this correction will be taken in the spirit that it is intended. For it is precisely the quality and detail of the description that seems convincing, and calls for a modest correction of its facts. It is found in an article on the Napoleon reference site


http://www.georgianindex.net/Napoleon/coronation/coronation.html

which describes the coronation at length and contains this quote:

"According to the precis verbal of the master of ceremonies, Segur, the ceremony took place in accordance with the plans. After taking the crowns and other regalia from the altar and blessing them, the Pope returned them to the altar and then took his seat. Napoleon advanced and took a crown known as the Charlemagne crown, though the actual French Coronation crown known by that name had been destroyed during the French Revolution and this crown was a new crown made to look Medieval, from the altar and placed it on his own head. He then returned to the altar and replaced the so called Charlemagne crown with a laurel wreath made of gold of the type worn by Roman Emperors. Napoleon then once again took up the Charlemagne Crown and walk to the kneeling Josephine. As he held the crown up, Napoleon stated that he was crowning Josephine as his wife, not by her own right. This is the moment illustrated in David's famous painting of the coronation. Napoleon is wearing his personal golden laurel wreath crown and holding up the newly made Coronation or Charlemagne Crown. He then touched the coronation crown to Josephine's head."

Unfortunately this vivid description contains a subtle error. Though it rightly mentions that the gold laurel wreath was Napoleon's personal crown, and the "Crown of Charlemagne" was a replica to resemble a medieval original, it has then confused this replica "Crown of Charlemagne" with the crown placed on Josephine's head. The mention of David's painting clinches the fact of the conflation and confusion. This and other similar oversights occur because there were in fact three, not two, crowns involved in the ceremony, not counting the pope's tiara. These crowns are (1) Napoleon's crown which he crowned himself with, which is not = (2) "Crown of Charlemagne", and (3) Josephine's crown/coronet as Empress.

To understand the background, recall that Napoleon had accepted roughly duplicating the enthronement and consecration rites of the French Kings. Then as now, it can seem odd that the culmination of the French Revolution re-instituted the monarchy, albeit under a different name. Nevertheless, the coronation followed an outline very akin to those of the Bourbon kings. This was no mere dictatorship, or even Consulate (both which applied to Napoleon's earlier phase), but a full-blown re-presentation of monarchical grandeur and consecration. Despite the militantly secular character of the Revolution, it even sought the blessing of the Catholic Church.

However, there were key differences. Notre Dame was chosen as the site for the coronation, rather than the traditional cathedral at Reims (Ex., King Louis XVI had been crowned there on 11 June 1775). It was redecorated and refurbished by Percier and Fontaine. In key places temporary structures were built. At the large western entrance a big four arched portico surmounted by statues representing the towns of France was erected. These statuettes were flanked by King Clovis on one side and Charlemagne on the other side, each monarch holding a scepter in hand. A flagpole between them flew the archaic banner of St Denis.

Changes were also made inside the church. The screen of the choir and two lesser altars were removed, and sloping tiers of wooded seats covered with silk and velvet built on the sides of the nave. At the back of the church, a large twenty-four stepped dais with porch was raised upon which stood the thrones of Napoleon and Josephine. On the left side of the nave a temporary throne with canopy was erected for Pope Pius VII, where he sat for much of the ceremony, though the David painting shows him at the time he came to the high altar to bless the regalia.

This regalia is mentioned in the description of the imperial procession coming to Notre Dame found in Andre Castelot's `Napoleon' : "First came the four ushers-then at a distance of ten paces-came the heralds at arms, the pages, the aides, the master of ceremonies and the grand master carrying his staff, one behind the other. Then, escorted by Josephine's chamberlains and equerries, came three marshals dressed in white satin and aflutter with plumes...the first, Serurier held the Empress's ring on a cushion flanked by General Gardanne and Colonel Fouler...the Second, Moncey, carried the basket of purple velvet twisted and braided with gold and silver-gilt handles to receive her mantle, flanked by Colonel Vatier and M.de Beaumont....finally, the third Marshall, Murat, bore Josephine's crown, having d'Harencourt on his left and M.d'Auubusson on his right. Then came Empress Josephine herself, her mantle carried by Hortense, Julie Clary, Caroline, Elisa and Pauline all supporting the 30 square yard mantle. Each of the princess's had a chamberlain holding their mantle, making a total of 12 persons around Josephine. At the end of the procession came the maids of honor, the mistress of wardrobe and the six ladies in waiting."

Then the Emperor's seemingly endless retinue came next.....It is this point of the description to narrow in on:
"...then came the `regalia of Charlemagne' carried by [Marshals] Kellerman, Lefebvre, and Perignon. Followed by Napoleon, wearing the gold wreath crown and carrying in one hand the the silver scepter capped by eagle, and in the other a rod tipped with the hand of justice. His mantle was carried by Joseph, Louis, Lebrun, and Cambaceres. Then came the marshalls carrying Napoleon's regalia proper-the orb of the world, the silver scepter, and pearl-decorated staff."

Stop there and note. The `regalia of Charlemagne' referred to the surviving pieces -- and copies of those which did not - from the royal regalia of the French kings which had been preserved in the abbey of St. Denis till consumed in the ravages of the French Revolution. Though by the Enlightenment the `regalia' was simply brought out for consecrations of monarchs and not worn (apart from sometimes a very brief donning of the aging crown) it remained very important.

In the description, Marshall Kellerman is the one carrying one such replica, the `Crown of Charlemagne' itself. The crown by this name and other regalia had been associated with Charlemagne since the early Middle Ages and were of great antiquity. They had been stored at the Abbey of St. Denis and were brought out at the consecration of each French king. However, in 1590 the crown and other artifacts were destroyed in a ransacking. A replacement was ordered made, and this one in fact survived all the way till the end of the 18th Century. Then the replacement crown too, was destroyed in its turn by the anti-monarchist forces of the French Revolution. When the time for his coronation drew nigh, since the original crown had been destroyed, Napoleon had commissioned a replica from the goldsmith Martin-Guillame Biennais who worked by designs created and guided by the jeweler Etienne Nitot. Some attempt at realism was evidenced by the use of ivory cameos and only gold and metallic decoration; the profusion of jewels of Bourbon crowns was avoided. Amazingly enough, this crown still survives in the Louvre today, but it is rarely explained that it is not technically "the crown of Napoleon" that people have in mind that he "crowned himself with". It dates from 1804, not Charlemagne's time, or even the Middle Ages. It simply was intended to serve as a prop for the usual symbolic role of the original "Crown of Charlemagne".

We see this as the description goes on. "...at the entrance of Notre Dame Cardinal Cambaceres presented holy water to Josephine, with the dyspeptic Cardinal Archbishop de Belloy offering it to Napoleon-`while the Pope approached the altar and began the Veni Creator'. Then Napoleon `divested himself of his crown, scepter, sword, ring, hand of justice, and imperial robe, all of which were placed on the high altar to be joined by Josephine's robe, ring, and crown.'. Josephine was led under canopy to the small chair in the choir with velvet seat next to Napoleon's. The mistress of the wardrobe and lady of honor took off her heavy mantle and Moncey received it in his basket. Then her honors-crown/coronet, ring and mantle-were placed on the altar with Napoleon's honors."

Notice that Napoleon was already wearing his laurel gold crown and took it off upon reaching the altar. It, with Josephine's, would need to be blessed by the Pope before Napoleon could put it back on and conclude the formal consecration rites.

At this point Napoleon and Josephine knelt at the foot of the altar, and received the ritual of anointing, with the triple unction on heads and palms of hands. The Mass proceeded until the Gradual, when His Holiness signaled for the start of the coronation proper. Pius VII now blessed all the combined Imperial regalia of both Napoleon and Josephine that had been laid atop the altar. Napoleon's sword, scepter, orb, the hand of justice, collar, mantle, gold laurel crown, and ring. Then Josephine's mantle, crown, and ring.

Napoleon then crowned, or rather re-crowned, himself with the gold laurel crown after receiving the ring. Still wearing it, he turned and lifted the smaller crown of the Empress from the altar, turned, and with great dignity, first put it on his own head -- as one said, "as if to imperialize it" -- and then arranged and set it on Josephine's head as she bowed. This is the enchanting moment David chose for his painting, rather than the self-coronation. This not least because the self-crowning was not the dramatic surprise legend would later assign to it. During this time, Marshall Kellerman continued to hold the "Crown of Charlemagne" replica on a cushion in his hands; not placing it on the altar, and this fact was captured not only by David, but by the more literal and detailed depictions of the event in the coronation book of "Le Sacre". As far as known, it wasn't even brought to the altar for blessing.



Having previously crowned himself with gold laurel crown, Napoleon first has placed it on his head, then takes up and prepares to places Josephine's smaller woman's crown upon her head in turn. This is the moment captured in David's famous painting.



After the crowning, Emperor and Empress rose and moved to the rear where a great temporary dais and throne had been set up, that is usually not visible in pictures of the ceremony because at the back. Twenty-four high steps were needed to reach its top, where two thrones stood, Josephine's smaller and one step lower than her husband's, naturally. The Pope followed them there, and at that place after blessing them turned to all assembled and announced "Vivat Imperator in aeternum". This gave rise to a storm of "Long Lives!" from the congregation, while Pius VII returned to the altar and the mass continued to the reading of the Gospels.

When the time came for the gospel, the Bible or missal was carried to Napoleon and Josephine to kiss. The offertory utilized a silver-gilt bowl and ewer used at Louis XVI's own coronation, providing another link. After the mass, Pope Pius VII pointedly exited as arranged, for he did not want to sanction or condone by his presence the secular "liberty of worship" oath which Napoleon was to swear to not to impose any religion. Its words say much: "I swear to maintain the integrity of the territory of the Republic, to respect and cause to be respected the laws of the Concordat and liberty of worship; to respect and cause to be respected equality of rights, political and civil liberty, the irrevocability of the sales of national property, to levy no duty, to impose no tax, except by virtue of the law, to maintain the institution of the Legion of Honor; to govern solely for the interests, happiness and glory of the French People."

There came a rousing trumpet from the herald to close the proceedings: "The most glorious and most august Napoleon, Emperor of the French, is consecrated and enthroned!". It was nearly three o'clock and the long and majestic ceremony was concluding.

In the above, italics draw attention to some facts. Namely, if you note carefully, there are three crowns, not two. These are (1) replica of Charlemagne's' crown, (2) Napoleon's official crown, the crown fashioned like a gold version of a Roman emperor's laurel wreath, and (3) Josephine's own smaller but more delicately and elegantly wrought crown.

The actual 1804 replica of "Charlemagne's crown" designed by jeweler Nitot and fashioned by goldsmith Biennais for Napoloen's coronation ceremony. It sits today in the Louvre. Starting life as a dubious replica, it now has its own singular historic significance and lore.



Here in a painting of c 1500 AD, we see the `Crown of Charlemagne' that Biennais was attempting to re-create in 1804 after its destruction. The resemblance of the "attempt" and also how it fell short, are both clear.





We have seen how there are two main sources of possible confusion regarding crowns in the 1804 coronation of Napoleon. First, the famous `crowning himself' by Napoleon really involved him simply re-donning, that is re-crowning himself with the gold laurel crown after consecration. A crown he had already received before the ceremony. Then he took Josephine's crown from the altar, placed it symbolically on his own head for a moment then with a flourish turned,placed, and arranged it elegantly on Josephine's head. This is the moment David chose to capture in his magnificent painting. The second point is the fact that the replica crown of Charlemagne made by Biennais was not directly used; but served as a symbolic `prop' or link to France's royal history. It can be seen held on a cushion in the black/white engraving at the top of this article if you click on, and look in the lower left corner. (In the same engraving Napoleon is putting on his laurel crown, and Josephine's crown can just be seen on the altar to right). The replica can also be seen carried by Marshall Kellerman on the extreme left of David's painting, peeking over the arms of two figures in front, for it was desired not to emphasize it, for it was not considered a particularly successful feature of the coronation.

- Antony

The replica for 1804 `Crown of Charlemagne' appears in David's painting almost hidden; as a way of being both accurate, but not calling attention to it. Marshall Kellerman, who carried it, is completely obscured. I have placed a right-pointing arrow where you can just see the `dome' of the crown between the two men. Behind them all, is the canopied chair where Pope Pius VII sat for most of the proceedings.

Welcome! Today have added some changes to format and layout commensurate with broadened objectives for this blog.

- Antony

Blog Facelift and Update