BOOK REPORT!
The Murder of Napoleon by Ben Weider and David Hapgood
Published in 1982, this book follows Sten Forshufvud (pronounced for-shoo-fut), a Swedish man with two great interests: science and Napoleon Bonaparte. His portion of the story begins in 1955 while the chapters switch back and forth between he and Napoleon during his exile.
Forshufvud had read Marchand's recently published memoirs and developed a theory that Napoleon had been poisoned. He learned of a new method of testing for arsenic poisoning, developed by Dr. Hamilton Smith in Scotland. Forshufvud then set out to find some samples of Napoleon's hair. Known, documented samples from his exile. He acquired some hair and sent it to Dr. Smith, without saying whom the hair had come from, so as not to skew the results. According to the tests, Napoleon's hair contained enough arsenic that Forshufvud was certain his theory was correct. He obtained several separate hair samples from reliable sources that corroborated with Marchand's detailed memoirs to the point that Forshufvud could pinpoint when the doses of poison were being given.
The next task, was to determine who the murderer was. Forshufvud believed that the only one with the means and the motive to poison Napoleon was none other than Charles-Tristan de Montholon. His theory was that Montholon only joined Napoleon in exile to kill him, an assassin for King Charles X, the former Count d'Artois. Why else would someone so otherwise loosely connected to the Emperor, voluntarily join in his suffering in exile? Why would he stay when those more loyal to Napoleon left or asked to leave? Why else would he turn a blind eye to his wife and the allegations that she was Napoleon's mistress?
(Now while all of this sounds good and convincing to me, modern science has proven that everyone back then would have higher levels of arsenic than people today from environmental factors. However, all of the symptoms and bouts of illness make sense to me, especially when lined up with the detailed descriptions of what Napoleon ate and when he was sick. I think for me to be 100% permanently convinced that Napoleon did not die of poisoning, they would need to open the sarcophagus again and study whatever is left.)
Regardless of your opinions on Napoleon's manner of death, I would assume this book was ground breaking and relevant when it first came out. Now it is viewed as an outdated joke. To me, who loves both forensics and Napoleon, it was very fascinating. I would definitely recommend it as the lengths Forshufvud went to were very compelling and interesting. Also, it was the only book so far where I did not cry when Napoleon died. I guess it was more scientific than sentimental.
