# Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker > Antonio Canova - Commissioned 1802; modelled from life in Paris in 1802; carved in Rome from 1803; completed 1806 > Canonical HTML: https://iconotheca.com/artworks/antonio-canova/canova-napoleon-as-mars-the-peacemaker/ > Published by Servola Systems GmbH. Last verified: 2026-08-20 ## Tombstone - **Artist:** Antonio Canova - **Date:** Commissioned 1802; modelled from life in Paris in 1802; carved in Rome from 1803; completed 1806 - **Medium:** Marble, with gilded bronze globe and Victory, and a gilt-bronze staff - **Dimensions:** 345 cm to the raised left hand. The Wellington Collection gives the weight as 13 tons. - **Object type:** Sculpture - **Period:** European Neoclassicism, 1800-1830 - **Current location:** Apsley House, Hyde Park Corner, London, at the foot of the principal staircase - **Attribution:** accepted ## Summary A colossal marble nude of Napoleon Bonaparte, 345 centimetres high and about thirteen tons, carved by Antonio Canova between 1802 and 1806 on Napoleon's own commission. Napoleon hated it. He had wanted to be shown in uniform, called the finished figure too athletic, and never allowed the public to see it: by 1814 it stood in the Louvre, which he had renamed after himself, behind a canvas screen.In 1816, the year after Waterloo, the British government paid 66,000 francs for it and the Prince Regent gave it to the Duke of Wellington. It has stood at the foot of the staircase in Apsley House since 1817, on a floor and cellar that had to be strengthened to carry it, and it has never moved or been offered for sale.The obvious reading is that a defeated emperor was hung in his conqueror's hall as a trophy. Julius Bryant has argued the opposite, that the placement and the collection assembled around it were a considered tribute rather than a taunt. Both readings are about the Duke, whose own view English Heritage says is unknown. The object itself is stranger than either: a sculptor who spent 1815 in Paris as the pope's envoy prising Italy's looted art back out of the Louvre had, nine years earlier, made this. ## Provenance Every link carries a grade. `documented` means a cited source supports it, `disputed` means the identification is argued but not established, `unknown` means we have no owner for that span and have not bridged it. - **1802-1811** Antonio Canova, Rome; commissioned by Napoleon Bonaparte `[documented]` (commission and execution) Commissioned in 1802, Canova refusing at first and being pressed by the papacy to accept, with Napoleon insisting that he travel to Paris; the head modelled from life in Paris in 1802; carving in Rome from 1803; completed 1806. Napoleon asked for military dress and Canova refused, holding the heroic nude to be essential to the work as art. The marble left Rome late in 1810 and reached Paris on 1 January 1811. - **1811-1814** The French imperial state; Musee Napoleon, Paris `[documented]` (delivery and rejection) Napoleon saw the statue in April 1811, refused to accept it, called it too athletic and banned the public from seeing it. By 1814 it stood in the Salle des Hommes Illustres in the Louvre, which he had renamed the Musee Napoleon, concealed behind a canvas screen. It was never publicly displayed in his lifetime. - **1814-1816** The restored French state; named in most accounts as Louis XVIII `[disputed]` (passed to the restored monarchy) The seller in 1816 is not settled. The Wellington Collection and most accounts name Louis XVIII, whose government ordered that all paintings bearing the effigy of Bonaparte should disappear from the royal palaces, which is the context in which a colossal marble of the deposed emperor came onto the market. One account instead records the 66,000 francs as money the Louvre spent re-installing its Salle des Antiques, and English Heritage's house blog says the statue was purchased from the Louvre. Crown, museum or ministry, a price was paid. - **1816-1817** The British government, then Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington `[documented]` (purchase and presentation) Bought by the British government in 1816 for 66,000 francs, given in the sources as then under 3,000 pounds, and presented to the Duke of Wellington by the Prince Regent. Most sources date the presentation to 1816; English Heritage's house blog says the gift followed a year after the purchase. THIS WAS A PURCHASE, NOT A SEIZURE. In the same period Wellington was enforcing the restitution to Italy and the Netherlands of works Napoleon's armies had taken by force. - **1817-1947** The Dukes of Wellington, Apsley House, London `[documented]` (family ownership) Installed in 1817 at the foot of Robert Adam's principal staircase, with the floor and the wine cellar beneath strengthened to carry about thirteen tons. It has not moved since. Julius Bryant argued in Apollo in October 2005 that the position was a considered tribute rather than an insult; English Heritage states that the 1st Duke's own view is unknown. - **1947-present** The nation; Apsley House and the Wellington Collection, managed by English Heritage `[documented]` (gift to the nation under statute) Gerald, 7th Duke of Wellington, gave the house and the most important part of the collection to the nation in 1947. The Wellington Museum Act 1947, section 3(1), makes so much of Apsley House as is not comprised in Part I of the Second Schedule available to the Duke of Wellington for the time being as a residence for himself, his family, his guests and his servants; section 3(6) ends that right if the dukedom is extinguished. The Act states no fraction. The statue stands in the public part. There is no market for it and no export question: its disposition is fixed by Act of Parliament. ## Auction results Hammer and buyer's premium are stated separately. Where a source conflates them this record says so. - **** , - THIS STATUE HAS NEVER BEEN AT AUCTION AND CANNOT BE. It passed from the sculptor to the French imperial state, to the restored French regime, to the British government by purchase, to the Duke of Wellington by gift, and to the nation by statute in 1947. The single row below is the one recorded price and it was a government purchase, not a sale in a room; the figure is entered in the premium column because this table has no field for a negotiated price, and it is NOT a buyer's premium. It is recorded here because the number is constantly quoted without saying who paid whom. - **1816** Not an auction: a direct purchase by the British government, - Estimate: not applicable - Hammer: not applicable; there was no auction and no hammer - With premium: FRF 66,000, given in the sources as then under GBP 3,000. THIS IS A PURCHASE PRICE, NOT A BUYER'S PREMIUM - The buyer was the British government; the seller is named in most accounts as Louis XVIII and in others as the Louvre; the recipient was the 1st Duke of Wellington, to whom the Prince Regent presented it. Sterling conversions of period franc sums are derived and date-dependent and the under-3,000-pound figure should be treated as an order of magnitude, not a settled equivalence. No modern equivalent is offered: the methods for converting an 1816 sum differ by an order of magnitude and quoting one would be a bare assertion. ## Open questions - Who actually received the 66,000 francs in 1816? Most accounts, including the Wellington Collection's, name Louis XVIII; one account records the sum as money the Louvre spent re-installing its Salle des Antiques, and English Heritage's house blog says only that the statue was purchased from the Louvre. Crown, museum or ministry is unresolved. - What did Canova charge for the marble, and did he ever collect it? No fee is given in any source consulted, which is a substantial hole for a commission of this scale from a head of state. - Who in the British government decided to buy it, and out of what vote? The 66,000 francs is recorded but the department and the parliamentary authority for the purchase are not established in the sources consulted. - Was the presentation to Wellington in 1816 or 1817? Most sources, including the Wellington Collection and English Heritage's own page, give 1816; English Heritage's house blog says the government bought it in 1816 and gifted it a year later. The installation date of 1817 is not disputed. - What did Wellington himself think of it? English Heritage states plainly that his opinion is still unknown. Julius Bryant's tribute reading and the older insult reading both rest on the arrangement of the house rather than on a statement by the Duke. - Was the choice of the stairwell aesthetic or structural? It is the only space in Apsley House tall enough for a 345 cm figure, and the floor and wine cellar had to be underpinned to hold thirteen tons. No source consulted addresses whether any other position was considered. - Were the five plasters made for academies of fine arts or as working models for the lost-wax casting? The English and Italian accounts give different purposes for the same number, and only one plaster's destination, the university library at Padua, is documented. - Where are the remaining plasters, beyond the one in the Pinacoteca di Brera and the one at Possagno? - On what date was the Victory stolen from the Brera bronze, and was the original ever recovered? The 25 October 1978 date carries a citation-needed flag in the source that gives it; the Italian account gives only 1978, with replacement in 1980. - Has the Apsley marble ever been examined for Canova's wax and tinting? He is documented as treating flesh surfaces, and two centuries in a London stairwell would have consequences for any such layer. No published technical report was found. ## Sources - [1] Wikipedia, 'Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker'. TERTIARY. Used for the dimensions, the 1802 commission and Paris sittings, the arrival in Paris on 1 January 1811, Napoleon's rejection in April 1811 and the canvas screen in the Salle des Hommes Illustres by 1814, the 66,000 franc purchase and the under-3,000-pound conversion, the 1817 installation and floor strengthening, the Righetti bronze with Castel Sant'Angelo cannon metal, the Brera base of 1864 by Luigi Bisi, the theft of the Victory, and the history of the plasters. Note that its own body text gives the 66,000 francs as money the Louvre spent re-installing its Salle des Antiques, which does not sit easily with its lead's statement that the statue was purchased from Louis XVIII, and that its 25 October 1978 theft date carries a citation-needed flag. It cites Christopher M. S. Johns, 'Antonio Canova and the Politics of Patronage in Revolutionary and Napoleonic Europe' (1998), which is the work to read next and has NOT been consulted here. - [2] The Wellington Collection, object entry for 'Napoleon as Mars the Peacekeeper'. The custodian's own account: the 1802 Rome commission, completion in 1806, arrival in Paris in 1811, the too athletic judgement, Louis XVIII's order that all paintings with the effigy of Bonaparte disappear from the royal palaces, the acquisition by British forces and the Prince Regent's gift in 1816, the weight of 13 tons, and the reinforcement of the wine cellar beneath the grand staircase. - [3] English Heritage, 'Significance of Apsley House'. Records the statue at the principal staircase as presented to Wellington in 1816 and originally commissioned from Canova by Napoleon himself, and gives the collection as over 3,000 works. - [4] Julius Bryant, 'How Canova and Wellington honoured Napoleon', Apollo, vol. 162 no. 524, October 2005. The argument that the stairwell position was a carefully thought-out tribute rather than a calculated insult, and that the care taken over the display and the surrounding collection indicates the statue was meant to command respect rather than serve as a war trophy. The full text is behind a paywall on Gale, which returned HTTP 403; the citation, the argument and the author's position as Keeper of Word and Image at the Victoria and Albert Museum are taken from the published abstract and index entry, and the article itself should be read before this section is relied on in print. - [5] Apsley House and Wellington Arch Blog, 'Napoleon as the Peacemaker' by Ricky Hitching. English Heritage's own house blog. Source for Canova's initial refusal and the papal pressure to accept, Napoleon's request for French military attire and Canova's refusal on the ground that the nudity was essential, the too athletic judgement and the canvas screen, the purchase from the Louvre, the statement that the gift followed a year after the 1816 purchase, and the statement that Wellington's own opinion of the statue is still unknown. - [6] Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), 'Antonio Canova', via Wikisource. TERTIARY and dated, used only for the 1815 papal mission to Paris, the statement that a large part of the spoils was recovered, and the creation of Canova as Marquis of Ischia with an income attached. It gives no convoy figures. Flagged for replacement with Johns (1998) and with Canova's own correspondence. - [7] The Art Newspaper, 'The fruits of war: how Napoleon's looted art found its way home'. Source for Wellington's assistance to the King of the Netherlands and his troops in the Louvre; for Castlereagh's argument from the principle of property, the surest and only guide to justice, and settling the public mind of Europe; and for the two convoys, the British frigate and the 35,000 pounds provided to the Italian states. Note the article's careful wording that Castlereagh, Wellington and Charles Long APPEAR to have been in sympathy with the Italian claims. It does NOT contain the 41 carts, 200 horses or 249 works figures. - [8] The Art Institute of Chicago, 'From Rough Clay to Polished Marble: A Close Look at Canova's Process', with the National Gallery of Art's 'Who Is Antonio Canova? 10 Things to Know'. The full-size clay model, the plaster cast by formatori, the bronze repere and key points, the point transfer and roughing out by praticiens, the lustratori and the final polish, the wax and tinting of flesh surfaces, and the contemporary criticism of the mechanical method. - [9] Museo Gypsotheca Antonio Canova, Possagno, collection entry for Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker. The holder of the Possagno plaster. - [10] Wikimedia Commons file page for Rijksmuseum RP-P-OB-39.165, wikitext read directly. Print by Antonio Ricciani after a drawing by Giovanni Tognolli after Canova, engraving on paper, collector's mark Lugt 12 stamped on the verso, catalogue reference Le Blanc 17, acquired by the Rijksmuseum in 2006, released CC0. The plate-size field was truncated in the copy read at 645 x 465 mm and should be confirmed against the Rijksmuseum's own catalogue. - [11] Wikipedia, 'Venus Victrix (Canova)'. TERTIARY, used only for the date range 1805-08, the Borghese commission and the present location of Pauline Bonaparte Borghese as Venus Victrix in the Galleria Borghese. Flagged for replacement with the Galleria Borghese catalogue entry. - [12] Wellington Museum Act 1947, c. 46, section 3, on legislation.gov.uk. Section 3(1) makes so much of Apsley House as is not comprised in Part I of the Second Schedule available to the Duke of Wellington for the time being as a residence for himself, his family, his guests and his servants; section 3(6) ends the right on extinction of the dukedom. The Act states NO fraction of the house, and the commonly repeated 'just over half' does not come from it. - [14] Wikimedia Commons file page and full-resolution image for the Apsley House photograph used as plate 1, examined directly. The file is released cc-zero by the photographer with the underlying sculpture PD-old-100. A crop at full resolution confirms the gilded Victory standing on the gilded globe in the right hand, the dark ungilded staff, and the tree stump and scabbarded sword against the weight-bearing right leg. - [15] Italian Wikipedia, 'Napoleone Bonaparte come Marte pacificatore (Milano)'. TERTIARY, and it disagrees with the English article on several points recorded here: it dates the bronze 1810 and the commission to spring 1807 for 5,000 French louis on Eugene de Beauharnais's orders; it says the five plasters were executed by Vincenzo Malpieri in 1808 in preparation for the lost-wax casting rather than as copies for academies; it records the Padua plaster as destined for the university library for Canova's friend Daniele Francesconi and held at customs against an unpaid duty of 330 scudi, then bought by the government of the Kingdom of Italy for the Royal Academy; and it gives 1978 for the theft of the Victory and 1980 for the replacement. - [16] Wikipedia, 'Napoleonic looting of art'. TERTIARY. The source for the convoy of 41 carts drawn by 200 horses carrying 249 works out of Paris on 25 October 1815, a figure that is NOT in The Art Newspaper article at source 7 and was wrongly attributed to it in the first version of this record. --- Images on this record are public domain or CC0 and are hosted by us. No image on this site is generated or simulated. If you quote this record, quote the provenance grades with it.