Also, bonjour.
styofa doing anything

Discoholic 🪩

noise dept.

oozey mess

⁂
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
hello vonnie

blake kathryn
art blog(derogatory)
Sweet Seals For You, Always
i don't do bad sauce passes

pixel skylines


JBB: An Artblog!

shark vs the universe
DEAR READER
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

#extradirty

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Greece

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from France

seen from Canada
seen from Brazil
@mathildeaquisexta
Also, bonjour.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Napoleon and Maria Walewska
This is how I would write Napoleon and Maria Walewska's relationship for a fictional telling (but also some serious debunking about the topic).
But first some premises.
I know I already expressed my dislike for such couple and I still do in some measure. First of all, there's a great gap in their ages, experience and social power which I don't find great; but I especially dislike how this couple came as an obstacle for my favourite couple and even contributed to end it.
Whom I really despise is not Naps and M themselves though, it's the historians and biographers who put Maria on a pedestal like she was a saint, the same ones who tend to demonise Joséphine as a frivolous, unfaithful slut. Yet while Joséphine's affairs are alleged, this "saint" committed adultery knowingly destroying two families for her own interest (and lust).
That's not what I actually think of her, but it should be the opinion these biographers should have of her according to this mentality. I'm quite convinced that if she had never given him a much needed son, Maria wouldn't be held in such high regard among Napoleon's lovers.
Lately I became curious about Maria as her portrayal is very stereotyped and flat, because of the Memoirs people attribute to her. I wanted to find more nuance in her figure.
I also have an issue with the narrative behind Napoleon's "love" stories. Because of the way they are told, you don't really get why people like Josephine or Maria received love from him more than the rest of his lovers. It's just and intense lust. But I need to find something deeper between them in order to see these relationships as loves.
That's the purpose of this post.
Usual disclaimer: Now since I'm a creative and not a historian, this has to be seen as the concept behind a hypothetical fictionalised version of their love story. It's very hard to extract from sources aspects like a character's feelings, their state of mind or the full extent of their intentions behind any action; so what I'm writing has no pretense of being accurate, it's more of a creative exercise and character exploration.
So I like to think that Napoleon and Maria mostly bonded a lot over patriotism as a way to project your own feeling of oppression.
I am all for giving a woman something more than sex appeal as a valuable trait in the eyes of a man. She can't be reduced to a sexual object.
Hard to believe, but there was a time where Napoleon was an idealist, fueled by a sense of isolation. I'm quite convinced that, as a young boy, he projected his own wish to be free from all his responsabilities in the obsession for Corsica's independence. The fact that the island was de facto annexed to France by the time he was born must have enforced his connection to it. Both were tied to and have been oppressed by France. He even wrote fanfiction about Corsican freedom fighters and wanted to write a history of his island.
(I know this because Napoleon's youth and Corsican shenaningans are MY obsession in turn. And I also projected my own experience with bullying and feeling different in his early life. I know what it means to pour all your feelings in creative projects. He was always featured in mine)
Then he had to grow up and the very brutal end of his experiences in Corsica must have contributed building his trademark pragmatism and cynicism.
By the time he met Maria, he was weighted down by several years of political intrigue and not to mention wars. Even his closest relationships have been conditioned by his political role and he had become quite distant and formal with most of his relatives. For example, @thiswaycomessomethingwicked made this excellent post about his brother Joseph and him where they quote a meaning letter exchange from 1806 about "still recognizing the Nabulio in the Emperor". His relationship with Josephine had also been compromised by his several (and most of all PROVEN) affairs and the issue of children, which was a private and a State matter at once. There was almost no clear line between his private and public sphere.
As we said, the main source about Maria as a person is her alleged Memoirs, which @suburbanbeatnik demonstrated me they are most likely 1) not hers and 2) very fictionalised in this post.
She's a very Victorian heroine, no mild feeling, just pure, unadulterated passion, enthusiasm, or suffering for anything. Her patriotism is downright extreme but inconsistent.
But as I said, I'd still like to see it as an important aspect of her true personality. She might have expressed it by managing the Count's household and lands, or giving shelter to Polish soldiers. It might have been a way to bond with an otherwise very old husband who may have seen a portion of Polish history she might have just heard about.
Since she was young and sheltered, her idealism and patriotism were likely very strong and pure; she shared a great deal of it to Napoleon and that might have reminded him of himself as a young man. He might have empathised with her, no matter how pragmatic he always wanted to be about everything.
She's said to have been devoted to Count Walewski before meeting Napoleon; of course she's portrayed as obedient and pious. But given how much older he was, it's impossible not to assume that a late teen wasn't in love with him. At least in the most physical sense. He may have treated her well and respectfully, but those unfamous "unhappy bride" paintings from the XIX century still come to mind. Considering how he was her first and only partner, she might have been sexually unaccomplished, no matter how mature and rational she was about the whole deal.
Even Napoleon must have looked like a boy compared to her husband, not to mention how energetic and headstrong he was. So I like to think his true appeal to Maria's eyes was the promise of a free life where passion and dreams could be a driving force. To her, Napoleon represented all of that, whom a part of her must have craved all her life instead of settling down in a forced marriage with an old man. Again, projecting.
I'd like to remind everyone she was a late teen when she met Napoleon, not to mention she had a sheltered life until then; she was immature, and that's not an insult, but an explanation behind her behaviour. It could explain how she might have seen her own feelings for Napoleon as true love, instead of rather a wish to feel free and relevant by proxy projected in a man.
I'm not undermining her feelings by the way. And I sympathise with her, in the same way I sympathise with young Napoleon. She's also a woman, albeit a countess.
I recognize her courage in abandoning her original support system and living as a lover in such an era, despite how her class privilege still has likely allowed her not to completely fall from grace, Lydia Bennet-style.
And of course I don't believe that Maria intentionally wrecked Napoleon's and Josephine's marriage by keeping up with the former as a lover. I don't think she wished for Josephine's fall. She likely didn't think much about that and only focused on her happiness with Napoleon and their incoming baby, always because she was still a little immature and unexperienced relationship-wise.
Else Josephine would have never offered her friendship later, nor Maria would have accepted it. Josephine could be a very sympathetic (albeit selectively) and forgiving person; she had already financed the education of her first husband's illegitimate children, and now she would support a foreign young and naive mother whose lover had abandoned her.
When it comes to affairs though, I'd argue that Maria wasn't naive. I don't remember who noted that, but by the time she visited Napoleon at Elba, she also held some business on her own and certainly didn't rely only on Napoleon for money. That proves you can be naive and intelligent at the same time, and money and love are separate matters.
Les liaisons dangereuses illustrated by George Barbier.
Was Junot bisexual?
(a rewrite of a post I made a while ago - thank you @wenzhulong for reminding me!)
I imagine a lot of people may think that the idea of Jean-Andoche Junot having romantic or sexual feelings for Napoleon Bonaparte is the degenerate fantasy of chronically online fujoshis. But on the contrary, this is an idea that has been explored in both fiction and non-fiction since the early 20th century. A notable example is ‘L’étrange passion de Junot, Duc d’Abrantès’, published in the ‘Mercure de France’ magazine in 1926, a fictionalised account of Junot’s life based on oral history passed down to the author from her ancestor who was friends with Junot, and in this story the author proposes quite explicitly that Junot was bisexual. I also think it’s worth noting in discussions of historical queerness that the way we view sexuality today is very different to how it was viewed historically: statistics show that a much higher proportion of Gen Z identifies as lgbtq+ than any other generation, but that doesn’t mean that more queer people are being born today than in the past, it just means that in older generations people felt a greater pressure to perform heterosexuality and were far less willing to accept the possibility of being queer. In many cases, historical people could be both gay and homophobic (for example, William III of England was widely rumoured to be bisexual but also approved of anti-sodomy laws). I do not think that Junot would have identified as queer, because he evidently presented himself as fitting the mould of traditional heterosexual masculinity and did not feel that his intense feelings about male friends were in any way “deviant”. I do not think that Junot ever knowingly engaged in explicitly homosexual activity, however I do think there is a case to be made for his feelings for men being romantic and sexual as well as platonic, whether he would have acknowledged that or not.
The main example of Junot’s possible bisexuality is his close attachment to Napoleon, however I would like to put forward the possibility of him experiencing attraction to other men as well. Out of all the men who knew Junot the best, such as his aides-de-camp or his valet Heldt, none of them left any memoirs or written sources about Junot, and so his personal relationships with men are ultimately a mystery. His childhood friend Marmont wrote a memoir, but Marmont writes little about their friendship and is furthermore an unreliable author due to his tendency to alter events to depict himself in the best possible light. However, there are a few sources from men who knew Junot that indicate that his possibly fruity behaviour was not limited to his feelings for Napoleon. Decades after Junot’s death, Marshal de Castellane wrote of him:
'King Leopold received the civil and military authorities at the town hall. There was a dinner for thirty people; I was next to Marshal Gérard, who took my thigh, as a sign of friendship, during the dinner. I saw, before him, this kind of caresses by the late General Junot.'
In a book published in 1882, ‘Ceux qui mangent la pomme: racontars parisiens’, the author Philibert Audebrand recalls his acquaintance with an elderly war veteran named Bonaventure who had known Junot in Egypt. Naturally this source can be doubted since it was written over 80 years after the Egyptian campaign and is based on oral transmission of the events, but it is nonetheless noteworthy that in Audebrand’s conversation with Bonaventure he was struck by both Junot’s devotion to Napoleon and Bonaventure’s devotion to Junot:
‘"Ah! "My friend," added the invalid (Bonaventure), "never attach yourself to a man, especially to a great man!"
"Very well," I (Audebrand) replied; "but you, who tell me this, confess that you have never been able to detach yourself from Junot, and I see that you do not pass a day without thinking of him."
"Not a single day. You are telling the truth."’
Lastly, in Ida Saint-Elme’s account of Junot’s complete mental breakdown in Illyria, she mentions that he formed a very close attachment to a local man who was also suffering from mental illness:
‘His (Junot’s) heart, naturally benevolent and affectionate, had even immediately formed a bond there, perhaps the last that would ever keep him in life, and to which he attached more value with each passing day. By a comparison more natural than one might think, but which strangely leaves one to reflect, he had made his Pylades out of a fool of fairly good family, and of fairly innocent morals, so that no one opposed his actions, but endowed moreover with a satirical and buffoonish mind, which exercised itself without scruple on all estates. The burles, sometimes facetious, sometimes bloody, of this Diogenes of Istria, alone had the privilege of enlivening the gloomy worries of the fallen hero; and the latter took an indescribable pleasure in seeing ridiculed all the greatness of the society which he had so dearly conquered, and which he was to enjoy so little.
It was above all in the burlesque imitation of the pomp of the governors and the very French elegance of the intendants that the wicked fool excelled, and it was then that the joy he knew how to inspire in his poor and illustrious friend knew no bounds. It was in one of these fits that the enthusiastic Duke of Abrantès threw himself into his arms and invested him with the noble insignia of the Legion of Honor, himself passing the grand cordon over to him. I saw, upon my return to Goritzia, Monseigneur's fool still grotesquely adorned with these attributes, which only the will of the Emperor could remove from him, and whose bizarre legitimacy our French authorities were obliged, if I am not mistaken, to recognize.’
It is worth noting that Ida Saint-Elme compares Junot to Orestes and his friend to Pylades: in Greek mythology, Orestes was a prince driven mad by the Furies and Pylades was his cousin and best friend. Their mutual devotion to each other in Greek tragedies led some ancient authors, such as Lucian of Samosata, to interpret them as lovers.
And now for the part I imagine you’ve all been waiting for: Junot and Napoleon. Laure Junot writes in her memoirs that Junot loved Napoleon more than he loved her, but since Laure isnt always the most trustworthy source let’s look at some other primary sources! From the very beginning of his career, Junot was noted for his extraordinary devotion to his general. A French newspaper from 1798 described him as
‘the brave Junot, that aide-de-camp so devoted to his country, so tenderly attached to his general’.
Later, Baron Honoré Duveyrier recalled witnessing Junot and Napoleon’s closeness at Napoleon’s headquarters in Italy in 1797:
‘After dinner, a tour of the garden; after the walk, a large circle around Madame Bonaparte, and very often a small circle around the general, in which my memory still traces Monge, Reguault-Saint-Jean-d'Angély, Arnault, Bonhomme de Commeyras and some aides-de-camp, Leclerc, already his brother-in-law, Murat, Lannes and Junot, whom he was fond of.'
In one of Junot’s few surviving personal letters, written to his father from Egypt in 1798 and published in a Burgundian newspaper, he expresses his admiration of Napoleon:
‘As we were returning to Cairo, well satisfied with our expedition, we heard the terrible news of the defeat of our squadron. This irreparable loss has afflicted us; but we will be able to get out of the situation, the fortune and genius of our leader are better than ten French squadrons.’
In Egypt, Junot got into a duel with another man, Lanusse, after Lanusse insulted Napoleon. Many years later when Junot angrily shouted at Laure after she insulted Pauline Bonaparte, Laure rightly deduced that this outburst meant that Junot was still in love with Pauline, and so we know that fighting to protect somebody’s reputation was one of the ways that Junot expressed his romantic feelings.
In 1811, terrible misfortune struck when Junot was shot in the face in a skirmish in Spain, and complications related to this injury later caused the sharp decline of his mental stability. The wound also robbed him of his famous good looks, and his son Napoleon Junot later recalled how deeply his father was hurt when the Emperor called him ugly:
‘At the circle, one day, he (Napoleon) said aloud to him (Junot):
"My God, Junot, how ugly this wound has made you!"
My father made no answer the first time; but, when he returned home, he wept bitterly over these harsh words spoken by him whom he loved so much! He didn't even tell my mother about it.
At the next circle, the same compliment from the Emperor, and as one may imagine, even more acute grief on the part of my poor father. This time only did he not have the strength to keep her to himself, and he poured out his sorrow in my mother's bosom.’
In Laure Junot’s memoirs she blames Napoleon’s harsh treatment of her husband in 1812 for his eventual madness and death, and in a letter written to Berthier about the bulletins in which Napoleon had denounced Junot she wrote:
‘These Bulletins advanced the life of the unfortunate duke... He talked about them constantly in his delirium.’
To conclude, the nature of Junot’s relationships with men is really up to personal interpretation, but I hope this post has made clear why, in my opinion, his feelings exceed what was considered appropriate for platonic friendships of the time.
Lastly I would like to share a drawing of Ganymede by Michelangelo that Junot kept in his private art collection, and which could certainly be interpreted as homoerotic. But I’m putting it below the cut so please only look if you are comfortable with artistic nudity 😭
i would love to meet tallien, say hi, and then bitch slap him

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
how it feels to psychoanalyze a man who’s been dead for 230 years
The Allies of Augustin
The obvious companion to the adversaries post. If knowing who hated Bonbon helps paint a picture of who he was, knowing who stood by him — or walked alongside him, or fell for him, or genuinely loved him — might paint an even more vivid one.
Charlotte and Maximilien are not listed here as the sibling situation is genuinely too complicated to squash into a section. Everyone else is fair game.
The Adversaries of Augustin
This is honestly a post/list I've been wanting to make for a while, mostly because of my own needs and wants to have a dedicated place to refer to in order to know how others felt about Bonbon, and vice versa..
Now that it's nearly summer break for me before I start college in the fall, I feel like I have an adequate opportunity to begin this project of mine!!
There were a lot of things I've forgotten about over this past year of dedicating my life and mental energy (especially to daydreaming of) the younger Robespierre (SHAME!!!), and I keep getting surprised going back and reading and being like, "wait.. I thought Fréron and Bonbon were TIGHT!! Didn't he defend him that one time?!!" Even though I SHOULD know that Fréron is like 1/3 men who LOATHED Bonbon...
ANYWAYS!!
Here is a comprehensive breakdown of the figures, factions, and historical detractors who found themselves at odds with Bonbon throughout his life and legacy.
What’s confounding me is the rising anti-Semitism I see everywhere, but the same people doing it will then go on to like, rant about how Taylor Swift’s merch may have contained Nazi iconography while dubbing her “Swiftler.”
Or they’ll see that a person is Jewish and make snide comments like “uh oh Zionist alert” and then engage positively with content drawing parallels between the Trump Regime and Hitler’s rise to power.
None of it makes sense and it’s doing my head in.
Like, over the course of the last ~150 years the use of the “Zionist” label has been used to ethnically cleanse and harass Jews by parties as diverse as: heads of states inhabited by MENA Jewry, Poles in the 60s, Soviets, and Richard Nixon. And do we really think Taylor Swift’s merch team would do a relatively deep cut re: Nazi iconography for necklace sales? And then those same people will treat Jews as guilty until proven innocent.
I’m going to tear my hair out.
I think there's a pileup of related, but distinct phenomena that manifest to pull elements from past antisemitism in ways that appear new and novel but which derive from older things: 0) My operating theory for the last... 20 years has been that as the Greatest Generation and Shoah survivors die off, Anti-Jewish Hatred will revert to its historical levels. The time from 1945/7/8-1967 and then 1967-2023, (Generously simplified into 2 rough eras) for Jews, worldwide has been exceptional. (relative to... the last few thousand years) I think hatred of Jews exists, ironically as a parasitical, socio-religious meme that can infect people while also providing them with, effectively, a 'liturgy' to practice it that can easily adapt with the times. (Just Say Jewish, Jack, or Euphamisms for "Jew")
So Jew hate becomes a euphemistic way to address fears of the current moment with new definitions and cute little phrases and markers and emojis. "Spiritually Israeli" = "artistically empty, sub/inhuman, without merit, cynically capitalistic" "Zionist" means "Sinister Jew I don't Like," (Implied to be something that must be watched for with ALL Jews) "AIPAC" means ZOG/Jew I don't Like. "Nazi" of course means/has meant "Bad Person, the WORST, the Meanest and ugliest" so of course it is natural to apply that to Jews Who Fall Short of The Lessons From The Holocaust. (And of course the deliberate decision to do so is never interrogated by ostensibly caring and educated people.) (We can also get into Jew-As-Feminized Other/Woman as regards the weird swift hate but that's probably another discrete discussion) Further contentions: 1) The current internet is a socially isolating and consumerist and now necessary for everyday life in most 'developed' societies. (Govt forms optimized for smartphones and computers, QR code menus, etc) So people feel isolated and a bunch of them are searching for community and a sense of order. So stuff like the Palestine Omnicause becomes a religious practice with cult overtones because of that hunger. Even ostensible "Anticapitalists" are heavily consumerist and individual in their 'belief structures' and activism now. (To clarify, this is not Palestinians in general or people who want to live in peace but rather people taking advantage of the situation to grift/build cults/kill Jews.) 2) Fandoms: Mass Politics and social media politics are genre fandom now: This has developed on fandom lines with a focus on 'purity.' As it HAS developed accordingly, other 'fandoms' must be attacked as 'impure/frivolous/sinful' and using the mechanism of "Nazi" is all most of these people know. (There's also a delicious little thrill in busting that out and using it, and dead Jews, for other points after cheering on our murders but that's beside the point) 3) Populist movements are patriarchal above all, sexist, and racist. Having a 'lib mommy' figure to tear down to show you're 'not like other girls/rubes etc' slots nicely into "Taylor Swift is Hitler" (She's a lib-coded woman who can be bashed with any tools available)
4) People are finding pseudoreligious community and connection in online fandoms, most of which also heavily feature conspiracies and moderator astroturfing. Conspiracism runs on Jew-Hate, and Jew-Hate is the fuel for populist movements. (See the linked Ward article) 5) Jews (and the Shoah) as useful tools. Populists are finding it useful to use Jews as tools for unification of diverse movements around those conspiracy theories, but also Jews as a tool for attacking or boosting 'worthier' causes. So. Find "Good Jews" and use them to attack "Bad Jews" or use the idea of Jews/The Shoah to attach moral agency to Insert Cause. See the Trump admin's opportunistic embracing of going after "Antisemitism on Campus" (After the campuses themselves did a horrible job of addressing it) or people like Rep. Ilhan Omar quoting Elie Wiesel. Neither group involved gives a single solitary shit about protecting Jews, and failed repeatedly, while giving aid and comfort to every single libel and conspiracy (Hello Nazi Bar how are you today) but they find our narrative and the implied moral authority of the "Jew Brand" useful while disliking us as living people and culture. 6) De Judaizing Jewish art and culture. (Much bigger issue, ties into point 1 about Comsumerism and 2 about Fandom, they want to use things Jews made without being 'tainted' and there's much more of a push to do that. ) The Shoah existing (and people coming around to it being bad while resenting the 'guilt' implied to them) led to a 'snapback' effect where even the worst crimes committed against Jews must now be relitigated as the people who experienced and encountered them firsthand
So we have, essentially, a "The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz." situation, but now it's heavily consumerist, tailored (Taylored?) around a secular kind of cultic religion that has updated old 'memes' and it can be spread everywhere by malign actors with botnets and useful idiots because it is a VERY useful toolbox for aiding authoritarian populists, making money, and unifying diverse groups to accomplish political goals. (Link to Ward's Skin in the Game and an archive link because the OG article is not live for me)
Caveat: You're the accredited and published (Yay!) Holocaust scholar so pull me up if you think I'm wrong here. (I'm just some schmoe with a very old History BA.)
To be clear, you address some issues here that I am not informed enough about to be able to comment on. But in general? This is a brilliant meditation on anti-Semitism in the postmodern era. I kind of need you to write a book about this so it can be used as a canonical text alongside Yerushalmi’s Zakhor.
ps. Credentials and publication history does not mean that I’m better or smarter than you. Your posts and responses frequently leave me shook on an intellectual level.
I want to write my fanfic <- isn’t writing my fanfic

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
So I'm an archivist and a few days ago I got an email from a 15-year-old girl wanting to know if I've got any material on the only still-existing old mill in town (you've got to imagine this mill not like a quaint, stereotypical windmill the likes of which Don Quixote fought against but rather like an industrialisation-era factory).
I wrote back and asked if she needed this for a school project or for something else where there's a deadline looming, for the simple reason that the more time I have, the more in-depth I can go with my research and the more material I'll be able to get for her.
And she answered that no, it's for her personal use because she's interested in abandoned buildings in general.
And, like. What an absolutely excellent hobby for a teenage girl to have. I bet she's the coolest person in her class and I hope that no one ever gives her a hard time about her interests.
I wanted young Napoleon in his uniform and then I remembered I am an artist and can do anything hehehhehrhr
I gave up with the clothes but this went surprisingly faster than my rendering before
Imagine a version of these paintings with the starving women who marched on Versailles on October 5-6
Still a work in progress, but it is moving.
Anyway, since I started experimenting with paint earlier this year, I have had to get used to the idea that art has an “ugly phase”, and that the ugly phase can last for a while.
This is the ugly phase of my Bonchamps.
This portrait is basically a study, in my own style, of La Mort de Bonchamps by Thomas Degeorge, 1837. The original is a gigantic painting, which I had the opportunity to see at the Historial de Vendée two years ago. It is very impressive, and the photo really does not do it justice.
In the painting, the dying Bonchamps, surrounded by his most faithful soldiers, gives his second, Charles d’Autichamp, the order that will make him famous. He orders that the 5,000 republican soldiers who were to be executed before the defeated Vendéens crossed the Loire be spared. He tells d’Autichamp that this is the last order he will give, and that he would like it to be obeyed. They obey it.
I do have an issue with it. Not with its artistic merit. It is very much of its period, and the Bonchamps here is clearly inspired by the classical figure on the tomb by David d’Angers. My issue is simpler: Degeorge’s Bonchamps is too pretty. Too composed. Too noble.
Death is not pretty. And I feel making him look so graceful takes something away from the gesture itself.
At Cholet, on 17 October 1793, Bonchamps was shot in the abdomen. It was a fatal wound. It also meant a long, agonising death, lasting more or less a day. There were very few options for pain relief. Very little that could be done. (1)
The man was in agony. And in his agony, he ordered 5,000 prisoners spared.
The Bonchamps of the original painting looks a little too composed for my taste. Mine is still unfinished, but one of the things I want to work on is making his face look more like that of a dying man, without making it grotesque.
And the best part about painting (and, frankly, the useful lesson for someone who likes planning and has perfectionist habits) is that I have no idea how this is going to end up looking. I hope it will looks good.
Notes
(1) There is a post on this blog dedicated to Bonchamp's death and his impressive tomb by David d'Angers. Just take a look at the Bonchamps tag.
a funny thing about having a Problematic Blorbo is that you'll periodically come across a post along the lines of "um let's not forget that [Blorbo] is a bad person..." listing their various crimes, and if you have a modicum of intellectual honesty you find yourself nodding along and saying yeah it's true... but it's the greyness of their character that makes them so compelling... At the same time though you have a little Saul Goodman in your ear going "your honor in their defense: who cares like omfgggg who caresssssss like come onnnnnn"
As a Joseph Fouché enjoyer who has already taken part in a Napoleonic mock trial to defend his ass, the 3 stages method is very effective in case of a sudden "b-b-but how can you like him he is a bad person, he did that and that blah blah" :
stage 1, if there is no proof to support the claim : "It never happened"
stage 2, if there is evidence to support the claim but insufficient/too circumstantial : "It happened but it was not that bad"
stage 3, if the evidence is overwhelming AND bad : "It happened, it was bad, and they deserved it"

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Maximilien Robespierre and the Pope two centuries apart
I'm sick of the kind of "solidarity" where poor women's anger is shown as being understandable but not actually legitimate. Like, they show upperclass women being empathetic towards their difficult life circumstances, but the poor women are still shown as going "too far", mindless subjects of "mob rule" or evil caricatures.
Ribbons of Scarlet did this a lot, with Sophie de Grouchy, Émilie Sainte-Amaranthe, and even Madame Élisabeth being very charitable and tender-hearted toward those who are struggling, but those who are struggling like Reine Audu & Pauline Léon are still shown as vicious. The novel A Far Better Thing really does this, too, because one of the main villains is shown to have VERY good reasons for hating the local aristocratic family, but it is of course taken to a very vicious & cruel degree of wanting to kill the children, too, wanting to kill aristocrats just for their birth (rather than, you know, treason and espionage...), etc.
It's like modern authors have to acknowledge that the poor women have a point, but cannot ever acknowledge that they are actually right.