Napoleon: a Life in Gardens and Shadows

"When the anniversary of a great man like Napoleon comes around, I tend to think, what more can you tell me? Napoleon’s life has been extraordinarily well documented. It’s not a story we’re unfamiliar with. But if there’s one person who can bring new angles to this subject, then it would be Ruth Scurr. She is one of the most original, brilliant historians there is. She’s also a fantastic writer whose historical works are real works of literature. So, when I saw that Ruth Scurr was writing a biography of Napoleon by focusing on his interest in gardening, I knew it was going to be fascinating. Ruth takes enormous risks. You always think it could be a catastrophe, that she won’t pull it off. Her last book was a life of John Aubrey , which was half related to historical sources, half imagined, with a real understanding of Aubrey and his times. It could have gone horribly wrong, but she pulled it off. It was a fantastic read. She’s done exactly the same with this book which is, again, based on a very high-risk premise. It’s fascinating. At the core of it is the relationship between Napoleon and Josephine. Both have a tremendous interest in horticulture and gardens. They, of course, eventually have the means to create gardens on a formidable scale, but their philosophies are poles apart. Josephine liked the jardin à l’anglaise , as they call it, which is a structured garden that looks wild, as though it’s unkempt. It’s a kind of shabby-chic garden philosophy, with broken paths, and no apparent structure to it—although of course there is. Napoleon, who remember is a great mathematician, a great strategist, a man who likes order, a man who’s used to commanding and getting his way, prefers the French style of gardening, which is imposed from above. It’s all about order, structure, and the projection of power. He marshals his gardens much as he marshals his troops, he’s in complete command, whereas Josephine prefers this improvised style, that’s much more chaotic. It says a great deal about their relationship, which ultimately fails. “His vast empire has been reduced to these little plots on St Helena, miles from anywhere” Scurr is very interesting about why Napoleon is so concerned with order. One of the key moments of his life was when he was a young soldier in the Revolutionary Army and he witnessed the massacre of the Swiss guard in the Tuileries gardens in Paris. He sees a revolution, of which he’s been a supporter, running out of control. This acted as a warning to Napoleon about what happens when control is lost, when authority loses control, and you see that philosophy in his gardens. The book is also very moving. Napoleon took a great interest in horticulture as a child and, at the end, he almost becomes a child: you know, in his beginning was his end and in his end was his beginning. He’s there isolated on St Helena, thousands of miles from civilization. He constructs his plots of land, and it’s the one area in which he has control again. It gives meaning to those lonely, isolated days and Ruth Scurr, as she always does, tells this story brilliantly and movingly. Yes, I think it was. He was this lonely figure far away from anything that he’s known. It’s cold. He becomes ill eventually, with stomach cancer or some kind of digestive ailment that eventually kills him. That’s the sadness of it. His vast empire has been reduced to these little plots on St Helena, miles from anywhere. But he still manages to have some control over this one cultural pursuit that is still allowed to him, and which mirrors his childhood on Corsica. He had this Italian heritage. He was always an outsider, in a way. There was something about him that wasn’t quite French. He was always a one-off, and he sensed that and found comfort in plants as a child. And he finds that comfort again as this fallen hero, this huge figure who is suddenly in this diminished space. It’s very moving, very, very well told."