Edward Shawcross has made his debut in the world of biographies with The Last Emperor of Mexico (Attic of Books), a fascinating study of how Archduke Maximilian, brother of Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria, wanted to reign over a country that had nothing to do with with his. His attempt was destined to fail from the beginning, due to lack of popular support, but he insisted on seeing only what he wanted to see.
Shawcross not only maintains narrative tension throughout the story, but also perfectly dissects the psychology of the characters while taking the international context into account. Maximilian's adventure was possible because the United States was in the middle of a civil war. Otherwise, Napoleon III would not have dared to send an army to Mexico.
On the other hand, the empire of the Aztec country was based on an irresolvable contradiction: although conservatives supported him, the new monarch had a clearly liberal sensibility, and ended up alienating the sympathy of the only ones who were willing to support him on the throne.
Maximilian appears as an idealist with little sense of reality. His wife Carlota possessed the strength of character that he lacked, but she also made the mistake of persisting in an impossible mission. They would both pay dearly.
An old rumor suggests that Archduke Maximilian of Austria could actually be the son of Napoleon II. We would speak, therefore, of a grandson of the Great Corsican. What do you think about it?
The truth is that there were always rumors of this and even more so at the time. Above all, it was said that Napoleon III was not his father's son and, therefore, he was not a Bonaparte. What is curious to see is that Napoleon II met Archduchess Sofia when they both met in Vienna. He was a luxury prisoner, he lived very controlled, and he found an accomplice in Sofia, also a foreigner in that court. They had a lot in common: culture, history... Although I, personally, think that these rumors are not true, I do find it curious that Napoleon II died about two weeks before Maximilian was born.
Throughout the book, we get the impression that Maximilian lives in a permanent divorce from reality. Why does he think he was deceiving himself that way?
Firstly, Maximilian was a very dreamy and fanciful man, who tended a lot to think about what he would be like as a monarch and as a leader, due to his obsession with the legacy of the Habsburg dynasty. He was a person who did not have his feet on the ground and who, furthermore, allowed himself to be deceived. He did that thing that is so human: fantasize and then rationalize.
For example, when he was offered the throne of Mexico, he set two conditions: he had to have the support of France and Great Britain, and in Mexico they had to accept it by popular vote. But, in the end, when they cannot guarantee those conditions, he begins to convince himself that he, in reality, had never set those conditions. He wanted the throne equally. It is something very human: we convince ourselves of what we want, and that's it.
At the end of his life he is in an even worse state, because, to begin with, he already had poor mental health. He had experienced many traumas in Mexico, his wife Carlota was sick, and he took opium pills because he had dysentery. All this favored his divorce from reality.
France places Maximilian in Mexico. As soon as his troops withdraw, the imperial regime collapses. Isn't there a clear parallel with what happened to the United States in Vietnam?
Yes, there are many parallels with more recent interventions, not only with the Vietnam War, but also with that of Iraq or Afghanistan. Just as Bush did in Iraq, Napoleon withdrew his troops arguing that Mexico was already a pacified country and there was no need for them to remain there.
Another similarity is that the French entered another country violently, burning towns, torturing and executing people. However, they presented themselves as saviors. That is something that is very familiar to us, because we have seen it in other conflicts, such as Vietnam. In the end, France could not prevent its image from being associated with colonialism. She could not enter with bayonets trying to free the Mexicans.
Can we say that Maximilian was an indigenist emperor? His book portrays him as someone who was ahead of his time because of the way he believed in the rights of native peoples.
In fact, Maximilian, in general, has been represented a lot in that way, because, really, in the 19th century, the freedom movements did not take the indigenous people very much into account. More than anything because, from the point of view of the most liberal governments, what was important was their assimilation, and not respect for the traditions of different peoples.
That, as far as agrarian property was concerned, caused many problems, since the indigenous lands were placed on an open market. This opened the door for large landowners to buy them, displacing their former owners.
Maximilian came from the Habsburg dynasty, very accustomed to dealing with different peoples, with people with different needs, which contrasted with what many Mexican intellectuals thought at the time. They were unwilling to focus on the country's pre-Hispanic past, because they considered it barbaric.
However, Maximilian was very interested in that culture, in that history. He learned a little of the Aztec language and published decrees in that language. It was the first time that this happened in the history of Mexico. However, although the emperor possessed these attractive qualities, virtually none of his ideas could be put into practice.
During the reading, we are convinced that Maximilian and Emperor Franz Joseph are two very different people. The first, friendly and dreamy; the second, serious and responsible. But, at the end of the book, we see that Francis Joseph, at the beginning of the First World War, says: “If we perish, it must be with honor.” They are words that remind us a lot of those of Maximilian in Mexico. Can we think that, after all, the two brothers were not so different?
It seems to me that the issue also arises here that the brothers define themselves, among themselves, in contrast. It was said that Franz Joseph was very rigid, very conservative, that he only read a book if it had to do with something military. Maximilian, on the other hand, loved history, literature, botany... he felt enormous curiosity. But both, due to their upbringing in the Habsburg dynasty, had the same concept of honor, something that they took into account and that united them.
The general public, when thinking about Maximilian, has above all in mind the painting of his execution that Manet painted. Did the artist intend to denounce with this canvas the guilt of Napoleon III in the tragic end of the archduke?
Absolutely. This is a criticism on the part of the painter. It was already known that he was a republican and that he never supported Napoleon III's decision to impose an empire in Mexico. The truth is that the intervention was never well received in France. When people who had been in the conflict began to return and share their experiences, the decision was even less popular among the people. What Manet represents is how France betrays Maximilian for a personal policy of Napoleon III.
There are things in the painting that are not exact: the archduke, at the time of his execution, was not in the center of the scene nor was he wearing a hat. The executioners' uniforms are not entirely correct, but, curiously, they are very similar to those worn by the French. The face of the man on the right, who is preparing for the final shot, looks suspiciously like that of Napoleon III. Émile Zola, the French writer and journalist, noted that the painting was like a representation of France executing Maximilian.
It would be unfair not to talk here about Charlotte, the empress. She was a woman who desired a life of activity and effort, but after the fall of her husband, she spent the rest of her long life mentally ill and confined to a castle. That is to say: her tragic destiny gave her what she hated the most, a monotonous existence without incentives.
Carlota is a central piece of this entire story. She encouraged Maximiliano to do what she did and represented the most practical and ambitious side of the couple, compared to the dreamy nature of her husband. When he went on tours to see Mexico, she stayed governing from the capital. But everything changed when Napoleon III withdrew his troops from it. At that moment, Maximilian thought about abdicating. Carlota got so angry that she wrote a ten-page memo calling him a coward. She told him that he was not worthy of the Habsburg dynasty. I guess if your wife says something like that to you, you feel compelled to change your attitude.
She was so determined to move forward that she herself decided to go to Europe and have an audience with Napoleon III. The French emperor tried to avoid her by telling her to go to Belgium first, with the excuse that she was not feeling well. She stood in her palace and told her that if she did not receive her, she would break down the door.
He tried to convince him by showing him the letters he had sent to Maximiliano, where he promised to do anything for him and promised that he would never withdraw his support. But Napoleon III, although he began to cry, did not change his mind. He was a person who had already lost shame, or had never had it.
After that, Carlota went to the Vatican, to try to seek the pope's support. The idea was not very promising, because Maximilian had promoted some policies contrary to the interests of the Church. Victim of a nervous breakdown, the empress said that Napoleon III had infiltrated her closest entourage and was trying to assassinate her. In the end, she died in 1927, long after everything that had happened. She led a very sad and lonely life.
There is an anecdote about a German soldier who, upon returning from a war, passed in front of the castle where she was. He became curious, knocked on the door and asked who lived there. “The Empress of Mexico,” a servant responded, before slamming the door in her face. The soldier took it with humor and made a sign where he said: “Be careful, the Empress of Mexico lives here. Do not bother".
