Comments on: Is it just the nipples?

Question: Is it just the nipples?

Cuke — Fri, 20 May 2005 10:58:01 -0800

Calling all historians: a question inspired by this photo, found through this FPP. What is the significance of the Napoleonic hand-inside-of-shirt pose?

Other examples include this Byzantine mosaic of the Emperor Justinian and his retinue, and of course Napoleon himself (as painted by Jacques-Louis David).

I know they're all military men (to Justinian's right is General Belisarius and presumably another high-ranking military guy), but there must be more to the convention than this. Fill me in!

By: Specklet

Specklet — Fri, 20 May 2005 11:06:52 -0800

The hand-held-in thing was a common stance for "men of breeding". It was a fad.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Fri, 20 May 2005 11:09:25 -0800

There really isn't more convention. Napoleon always gets credit for it ("oh, he had bad ulcers..."), but it's really just a combination of human nature and 18th and 19th century military uniforms. If we wore thick coats with big, sturdy, gappy buttons a lot of people would pose that way. But we don't, so no one does it.

Think of the posture that a sizeable minority of people assume when waching TV-- they jam their hands in their waistband on top of their lower abdomen. No one taught anyone to do it-- it's just one of the postures that sticks because it feels comfy. It's like posing with your hand in your pocket, but no one tells you not to do it.

(Justinian isn't doing it, by the way. I'm pretty sure that he's just holding a bowl with one arm under his tunic. Or he has a huge boner.)

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 20 May 2005 11:22:36 -0800

If we wore thick coats with big, sturdy, gappy buttons a lot of people would pose that way.

I'm not sure about that; in the Napolean portrait, his jacket is actually unbuttoned to accomodate his hand...

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Fri, 20 May 2005 11:34:41 -0800

I'm not sure about that; in the Napolean portrait, his jacket is actually unbuttoned to accomodate his hand...

You might be onto something-- I always assume that the fingers are in different gaps because there was a portrait of Washington posed that way in my hometown library. And I always thought it was ridiculous.

Why jam your whole hand in there when a few fingers would be better? This might be related to why Napoleon such trouble fathering kids.

By: Cuke

Cuke — Fri, 20 May 2005 11:35:34 -0800

Thanks for the replies so far.

With regards to the Justinian mosaic, I was actually referring to the two guys on Justinian's right (white tunics, brown stripes - the general and his friend). C'mon - they've definately got their hands stuffed in their tunics...don't they?

Which means that if it's a fad, it's a 1200 year long fad.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Fri, 20 May 2005 11:45:26 -0800

C'mon - they've definately got their hands stuffed in their tunics...don't they?

I don't think they are. Looking more closely, everyone who is wearing a brown toga over their tunica (including Justinian) seems to have an obscured arm. The two guys in the entourage have funny arms, but that might be artistic license on the part of the guy laying tile-- as in he forgot to cover one of their arms halfway through. Something is definitely hosed with that mosaic-- the togas start out of nowhere.

By: agropyron

agropyron — Fri, 20 May 2005 12:03:13 -0800

I think you're looking at two different things:
1) A much older stance that was the standard way to hold your ceremonial toga
2) The Napoleon hand-in-the-coat

I don't have any answers for you though.

By: rabble

rabble — Fri, 20 May 2005 12:15:42 -0800

Well, I remember in Time Bandits that the "Napoleon" character does it because his hand is SOLID FREAKING GOLD. Which is something I never understood. In the slightest.

By: jazon

jazon — Fri, 20 May 2005 12:28:54 -0800

A quick google search using "napoleon pose" turns up FAQs: Why is Napoleon depicted with his hand in his coat? from The Napoleon Series.

By: Numenorian

Numenorian — Fri, 20 May 2005 12:30:27 -0800

I agree that it probably echo's the Roman Toga thing. The other bit to consider here is that photography back then wasn't such an instant thing. If I remember right the exposure on the earliest photographs is measured in 10's of seconds if not minutes. That can be a long time to hold a pose. I think this is also why some people can seem a lot crisper, clearer in some photos. I imagine it was easier to hold your hand steady if you left it in your shirt in the pose. That and it seems to echo the whole hand over heart thing that people still do today during the national anthem. These are all just some speculations from this historian as I don't recall ever seeing a definate answer on this one.

By: o2b

o2b — Fri, 20 May 2005 12:46:36 -0800

Following rabble's lead, in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Socrates often has his hand in a similar position because he is holding up part of his toga (keeping it fram dragging on the ground, I think).

By: Specklet

Specklet — Fri, 20 May 2005 12:55:42 -0800

The toga issue is a separate one. The Napoleonic quirk was a pose of a gentleman. Think of a Victorian man who, when talking with someone, put his hand behind him in the small of the back.

By: Cuke

Cuke — Fri, 20 May 2005 13:01:06 -0800

The link posted by Jazon contains this snippet:

the hidden hand was a feature of some statues of the ancient Greeks and Romans and that later painters based their poses on classical models

That seems to make sense. Thanks again.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 20 May 2005 14:02:33 -0800

I recall from e're the days of grade six naughtiness, a Playboy cartoon showing that what he's really doing his holding his penis in place. Yes, his great big penis, nearly as large as his own dimunitive self. Tee. Hee. So naughty.

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Mon, 23 May 2005 02:45:45 -0800

FFF: I heard Napoleon had a teeny weenie.

I recall a cartoon which explained it. He had a sandwich hidden in there. His troops were starving.