April 30, 2019

Jacques Chevillet (1786-1837), a rare emotional voice of a Napoleonic amputee

By Bert Gevaert

L’invalide (around 1823) by Nicolas Toussaint Charles (Musée de l’Armée, Paris)
L’invalide (around 1823) by Nicolas Toussaint Charlet
(Musée de l’Armée, Paris)

Under Napoleon (1769-1821) the face of warfare changed dramatically: huge armies consisting of thousands of soldiers, equipped with firearms, were involved in massive battles resulting in more (deadly) casualties. While edged weapons, which were still the main weapon of the cavalry, caused ‘clean’ and easy to be treated wounds, the nature of gunshot wounds was completely different. Bullets penetrated the body and drove pieces of clothes inside the wound, this, usually in combination of severe fracture of bones, increased the risk of gangrene. More serious wounds were caused by artillery in the shape of iron balls, canister (small pieces of iron or balls) or explosive shells and grenades. This kind of ammunition caused such serious damage that entire limbs could be blown away or shredded to pieces. In the eyes of surgeons, only an immediate amputation could save the life of soldiers inflicted by gunshot wounds or artillery fire.

Terry Crowdy (2014) provides us a very faithful number of amputees in one battalion consisting of 995 effective soldiers. After the famous Battle of Wagram (5-6 July 1809) in Austria 152 soldiers of this Battalion were wounded, amongst them 12 soldiers became amputees. At the same battle the famous French surgeon Dominique Larrey (1767-1842) performed 300 amputations on the 1200 wounded soldiers he treated. Larrey, who even made his doctoral thesis on amputation as treatment for gunshot wounds (Dissertation sur les amputations des membres à la suite des coups de feu, 1803) proudly claims that he performed about 200 amputations in 24 hours at the Battle of Borodino (7 September 1812) in Russia. During this Russian campaign in the year of the same battle, amputation had to be applied several times in the case of toes, fingers or noses inflicted by frostbite.

Without modern anaesthetics, amputation was horrible, not only the process of being amputated, but many people also considered life as an amputee as a ‘useless’ life. Nevertheless, there are some examples of officers with amputated limbs who continued their service as commander of a fortresses (e.g. Pierre Daumesnil, 1776-1832) or as instructor in a military school (e.g. Clément de la Roncière, 1773-1854).

Doctors were encouraged to remove amputated limbs out of sight of approaching soldiers to make sure that they were not discouraged for the next battle. General Jacques Casimir Jouan (1767-1847) was wounded at Dresden (26-27 Augustus 1813) and still remembers the pain when his left arm was amputated:

“I always heard that when one was sawing the bone, the pain was the worst. I don’t consider myself to be differently built than other men, but it is still that the amputation of the bone of my arm was not as painful compared with the cutting of my flesh.”

Soldier wounded at Waterloo (18 June 1815) with missing left arm, lying on his side, grasping a rope, watercolor made by the Scottish surgeon Charles Bell (1774-1842). The rope was used by the patient to change from position or to rise up from his bed. (© Wellcome Library, London)
Soldier wounded at Waterloo (18 June 1815) with missing left arm, lying on his side, grasping a rope, watercolor made by the Scottish surgeon Charles Bell (1774-1842). The rope was used by the patient to change from position or to rise up from his bed. (© Wellcome Library, London)

It was a custom in the French army to give a compensation to all amputees. This could be an honorary rank for a private (e.g. lieutenant) or a sum of money. This amount of money was not fixed and it depended on the years of service, the soldier’s rank and even on the outcome of a battle. Doctor Pierre-François Percy (1754-1825) mentions how an infantry soldier, who lost both arms, received the small sum of 60 francs in 1806 1. During his banishment on Elba from the 4th May 1814 till the 26th of February 1815, Napoleon proclaimed that disabled soldiers had the right to obtain 400 francs for two arms, 500 for two legs and 600 for three body parts. Disabilities were also taken into account when a soldier retired from the army and a lost limb made it possible to have a higher pension. Soldiers could also apply to stay in the famous Hôtel des Invalides in Paris, or other places for poor, retired and disabled soldiers. Besides that, private initiatives also existed to support disabled soldiers. General d’Aboville (1776-1843), who had lost an arm at Wagram, funded 1000 francs for ten year to a manufacturer who employed blind soldiers or amputees. It was also a custom to give disabled soldiers an honorary place at festivities and they were highly respected by their comrades. In 1810, due to the occasion of his second marriage, Napoleon offered 6000 dowries of 600 francs to all disabled soldiers who married. It took six months delay for about 4000 veterans to actually receive this money. Later, Napoleon even gave land – ‘veteran camps’ - in the conquered countries to his disabled veterans.

Despite the high number of amputees, not so many soldiers described in detail how it felt to be amputated and how they looked at their life as a disabled person. A notable exception is Jacques Chevillet (1786-1837), trumpeter of the 8th Chasseurs à cheval, who was engaged at the Battle of Wagram.

When he was fighting for his life, around 9 PM on the first day of this famous battle a shell exploded in front of his horse. Chevillet, who was just promoted sergeant, writes:

“Ahh!” I cried, feeling myself struck in the arm. My horse was struck down at the same instant and I found my leg stuck underneath him. My first action was to try to get myself up and to bring my left hand to my arm… But alas! I felt that my arm had been cut off. My horse, my poor Rondeau made several movements of his feet and head while moaning. In less than five minutes he was dead. (…)" (translation T. Cardoza, 2017, p.177)
While the battle between French and Austrians continued in all vigour, Chevillet had to stay on the battlefield and witnessed the horrors of war, unable to move because his leg was stuck under his dead horse. Meanwhile he had to watch how the horse of his friend had lost his two front legs and was lying next to him and how several wounded French and Austrian soldiers were hit by fragments of the shell and died around him.

After the fight Chevillet’s comrades discovered their friend between the corpses, they lifted his dead horse and Chevillet was put on a captured Austrian horse, while his arm was still hanging on his shoulder by a bit of flesh. One hour after midnight they finally found a doctor who could dress his wound, but since there were so many wounded, Chevillet had to wait for treatment until 5 AM. The surgeon, Mr. Valette, trimmed the flesh and the nerves, after tying off the bleeding artery in the wounded arm of our wounded chasseur.

As said before, Chevillet is one of the very few soldiers who expressed how it felt to be an amputee:
“I cannot tell you thee emotions I felt seeing myself an amputee for the first time. Then, taking my right arm in my left hand, I looked for the last time on the most beautiful flower of my life that I had to lose forever. The biggest of my regrets was to think that with my arm, I lost all hope of being happy, the talents that I had acquired in music, playing the clarinet, good handwriting, and finally all means of working.” (translation T. Cardoza, 2017, p. 180)
Chevillet gave his right arm to an Austrian peasant and asked him to bury the arm at the foot of a tree in his garden, saying that his arm was the arm “of a French soldier, who gave a good beating to the Kaiserlicks (the Austrians), but that is now over. He won’t beat anyone anymore…” (translation T. Cardoza, 2017, p.181)

Chevillet, and many other amputees, received a bonus of 100 franc from emperor Napoleon, but this was – in his opinion - not enough compared to the sacrifices he made for the Empire. Thus, when the birthday of Napoleon on the 15th of August came close, Chevillet put all his hope and efforts in obtaining the Legion of Honor. After a failed attempt to give his petition personally on the 15th, Chevillet succeeded four days later. In front of Napoleon, he was called a ‘hero’. Napoleon spoke to Chevillet ‘like a good father’ and granted an annuity of 500 francs from the domains of the crown, because this would – financially - be a better compensation than the Legion of Honor, which would only bring half of this sum. Even the descendants of Chevillet could benefit from these 500 francs in perpetuity.

For Chevillet meeting his beloved Emperor and hearing of the promise of receiving the annual sum of 500 francs, must have been one of the most beautiful moments of his life.
Another beautiful moment was his arrival home after almost six months of travelling, including a sickness which forced him to stay in the hospital for three months.

Chevillet doesn’t mention what happened to him after his amputation. When a leg was amputated, soldiers had to help themselves with simple peg legs, though certain officers could even use more sophisticated artificial legs. But in Chevillet’s case, his amputated limb could not be replaced by a piece of wood. As so many other soldiers who had lost an arm, he continued his life wearing a shirt or jacket with an ‘empty sleeve’. For many family members of Napoleonic veterans, the sight of a disabled veteran was not uncommon, so they had no other choice than to help Chevillet and other veterans in their needs. It may certainly not be forgotten that disabled veterans as Chevillet also provided a substantial income with their military pension.

Amputated Napoleonic veteran by Nicolas Toussaint Charlet detail from Réjouissances Publiques, 1822 (© National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne)
Amputated Napoleonic veteran by Nicolas Toussaint Charlet detail from Réjouissances Publiques, 1822 (© National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne)

But how would Chevillet feel when he looked at his stump, years after the fall of Napoleon in 1815? Did he feel pride, thinking about the French victories in which he participated? Or did he feel regret, thinking about that final battle which caused him to lose his right arm? Given the fact that he knew many other disabled veterans, he certainly didn’t feel isolated or marginalised. He was mutilated, he was a survivor and as so many people with disabilities, he tried to make the best of his life…


Bert Gevaert (Bruges, 1978) wrote a PhD on disabilities and deformities in ancient Rome and combines teaching in a secondary school with writing books and articles about various kinds of subjects (e.g. martial arts, disability studies, classical antiquity,...).

[1] In 1806 the price for bread was around 60 centimes and most men earned a daily salary between 75 centimes and 4,5 francs. Compared to men, the salary of women was usually much lower, sometimes even less than one third.
____________________

Recommended citation
Bert Gevaert (2019): Jacques Chevillet (1786-1837), a rare emotional voice of a Napoleonic amputee. In: Public Disability History 4 (2019) 6.

April 13, 2019

Goodbye "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend", the show that revolutionized popular depictions of mental illness

By Ylva Söderfeldt

The musical sitcom Crazy Ex-Girlfriend just finished its fourth and final season. Up until the end, fans were biting their nails and debating which of her three love interests the main character Rebecca would end up with. Throughout, we got to enjoy the creative, funny, and intelligent song and dance numbers the show has become known for. But there’s more than the musical element that sets Crazy Ex-Girlfriend apart from other sitcoms. In particular, it’s an unusual series in that it makes mental illness a central topic.

Of course, mental illness in not an uncommon theme for film or television. But characters with psychiatric illnesses are rarely the heroes, usually the villains. The idea we get from media about people with psychiatric disorders is that they’re either dangerous, ridiculous, or both. Even in a story set in a psychiatric clinic, such as One flew over the cuckoo’s nest, the patient-hero is not “truly” mentally ill. For all its criticism of oppressive system and practices in psychiatry, that narrative centers not on people who experience psychological suffering, but on someone who in “reality” does not belong in the clinic. The uniqueness of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is therefore that it allows a person actually suffering from a psychiatric disorder to have agency and gain audience sympathies.

The series centres on Rebecca Bunch, who impulsively leaves a successful career as a lawyer in New York City to pursue Josh, who was her boyfriend during a youth summer camp. She moves to a small town in California and starts building a new life and tries to win Josh back. This, she believes, will make her “truly happy”. The way she goes about her mission, however, is extreme and manipulative – that’s how she fulfils the sexist and ableist stereotype of the “crazy ex-girlfriend”. She breaks in to apartments, sets fires, stalks, and plots murder. All the while, the series is asking: is Rebecca “just a girl in love”, is she a criminal, or “crazy”?


Still, while recognizing her lack of boundaries and often appalling behaviour, it’s easy to root for Rebecca. This sets her apart from arguably the most classic fictional “crazy ex-girlfriend”, Alex Forrest from Fatal Attraction (1987). While Alex is closer to a horror movie monster than an actual woman, Rebecca gets to be a complete character. Early on in the series, it becomes clear that her obsession with Josh has a deeper root than just a typical love story. Her involvement with him, and the other men she ends up dating in the series, is motivated by a profound lack in her sense of self-worth. Through flashbacks, we learn about her childhood in a dysfunctional family, with a self-centered mother and an absent father, and that she previously has been hospitalized in a psychiatric clinic after having a violent mental breakdown.

The series, thus, becomes a narrative of living with mental illness. We get to follow Rebecca through different coping- and treatment strategies: going on and off medication, individual and group therapy, building a supportive social network and reassessing her career choice. We see her sink into a deep depression, deal with intense anxiety, and even attempt suicide.


This sounds like harsh topics for a musical comedy, and they are. But we also get to know Rebecca as a talented, funny, and clever person – and this is what makes the character unique as a portrayal of a person with mental illness. Whereas the role of “the mentally ill” in popular culture – in particular “crazy” women – is usually stereotypical, one-dimensional, and negative, Rebecca is a full person, and someone to relate to and identify with. Her mental illness is neither over-emphasised, nor erased. Rather, the series relentlessly examines the ambiguities surrounding narratives about love and shows that there is a thin line between what, in our culture, is considered romantic and what pathological.


Late in the series, Rebecca gets diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), one of the most stigmatized mental illnesses. The cultural stereotype around BPD is prevalent not only in the public but far into the community of mental health providers (Knaak 2015). The way that the disorder is often characterized reads like a catalogue of the most undesirable, even immoral, personality traits. BPD patients are described as manipulative, unlikeable, violent, attention-seeking, not possible to treat and unable to have healthy relationships. The destructive effects of this stigma become clear in the series when Rebecca falls into despair after she reads up online on her new diagnosis. And at the same time, the entire series destroys the stigma. It’s impossible to dehumanize Rebecca based on her diagnosis when we get to see her as the full person that she is. It’s also abundantly clear that the fact that she has a personality disorder does not disqualify her from meaningful relationships – here, it’s worth noting that the way that the series portrays female friendship is also particularly refreshing.
The series has been praised for its diverse cast and the way that it addresses and challenges stereotypes around mental illness, gender, sexuality, and race. However, it’s a shame that the series never took the opportunity to extend its clever take on these issues to other disabilities as well. A broader disability perspective is absent and actors with visible disabilities almost non-existent.

Nevertheless, there is a lot to be learned from the series about how to think about and present the social and medical aspects of disability. In the Crazy Ex-Girlfriend universe, mental illness is inseparable from the social and cultural context in which it emerges. At the same time, however, it does not write off emotional pain as “just a social construction”, but presents it as as a very real, tangible, and common type of suffering. Medicine does provide some answers to it, but not all.

This is a perspective that could be extended to disability in general: we don’t need to make a black-or-white choice between social construction and medicalization. Medical interventions and services are valuable, but cannot alone explain or remedy disabling experiences, physical or psychological.





Ylva Söderfeldt is associate senior lecturer at the Department of History of Science and Ideas at Uppsala University.
_______________________________

References

Knaak, S. et al. (2015): Stigma towards borderline personality disorder: effectiveness and generalizability of an anti-stigma program for healthcare providers using a pre-post randomized design. In: Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul 2: 9.

Recommended citation

Ylva Söderfeldt (2019): Goodbye "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend", the show that revolutionized popular depictions of mental illness. In: Public Disability History 4 (2019) 5.