What can Joseph Noel Paton’s In Memoriam tell us about the Indian Mutiny?
Volume 3 | Issue 7
Article by Thomas Moult. Edited by Sarah Fagg. Research by Jack Barnes.
The Indian Mutiny of 1857 profoundly shook British rule in India, and consisted of a range of complex causes both immediate and long-term. It was a crisis that lasted for over a year; ignited by Indian soldiers serving within the British armies in India, known as Sepoys. The purpose of this article is to examine specifically what the painting In Memoriam, by Joseph Noel Paton, can tell us about the Mutiny and how it conforms with the ‘traditional’ historical interpretation offered by historians. That is, that the Mutiny was a revolt by religiously-sensitive Sepoys rather than a ‘Great Rebellion’ or a precursor to Indian nationalism.
Joseph Paton was a notable Scottish artist of the Pre-Raphaelite style, and the use of religious allegory was a prominent influential theme of his work; particularly In Memoriam, which he employed to correspond with the popular conceptions in society regarding the interaction of British women within an imperial framework. One of the most infamous episodes of the Mutiny was the massacre of British women and children at Cawnpore by rebels who had formerly promised them safe passage. What is more, rumours quickly spread amongst the British – probably untrue – that these women had been ‘morally defiled’ by the rebels. The mood in Britain soon adopted intense calls for brutal acts of retribution. This was the sensitive social atmosphere Paton was to draw upon for In Memoriam.
In Memoriam was first unveiled in 1858 at the Royal Academy. The idea that in Britain the Mutiny had quickly been interpreted as Victorian medievalism and Christian heroism is clearly a prominent theme of the painting. Paton had initially painted a scene that depicted Sepoy rebels rather than Highlanders intruding upon the European women. Thus the suggestion of the original painting was that the women would be subjected to sexual violation, and the established virtues of female inviolability were therefore blatantly contested. Paton’s original version demonstrated the sensitivity of invoking this challenge: evidently it was one thing to talk about Indians defiling white women – but quite another to portray it. By painting out the Sepoys for Highland soldiers coming to the women’s aid, intonations of British superiority and masculinity prevail in a way that preserves the rhetoric of British women as sanctimoniously dislocated from Indian men. In the wider context, gender was clearly a powerful tool in differentiating between civilised and uncivilised cultures.
Paton uses allegorical and metaphorical devices to effectively relay the meaning behind the scene. The depiction of British women as innocent victims relates the idea of an assault on imperial domesticity within the home, and their distressed disposition represents the domestic environment transplanted into violence. Paton’s Pre-Raphaelite style reflects the profound elements of Christian heroism which constitute the painting. The Bible and the eyes of the central figures set towards Heaven recall scenes of ecclesiastical martyrdom and underline the broader constructs of domesticity and religious duty. The presence of the Indian girl also suggests the wider rhetoric behind the conceptions of ‘civilising Christianity’ in a land of backward religious practice and tradition – conceivably she is a neophyte to the central female figure who dominates the painting, and represents the stalwart Christian moral woman threatened in the Mutiny. Religious implications played a large part in the broader history of the Mutiny; the imminent threat of Christianity is generally cited as one of the underlying factors that caused the rebellion itself.
The themes explored in In Memoriam were expressed through a number of other contemporary avenues, although an account of the Cawnpore Massacre published in The Times, written by a British Sepoy spy named Nujoor Jewarree, appears to contradict the contemporary assumption of female sexual abuse that Paton draws upon. He was certain that no women had been ‘dishonoured by the Nena or his people…excepting in the case of General Wheeler’s daughter, and about this I am not certain.’ Jewarree described how Miss Wheeler killed her captors before throwing herself down the infamous well at Cawnpore; therefore relating female courage and providing an alternative scenario that was palatable to the Victorian temper. The 1857 illustration Miss Wheeler defending herself against the Sepoys at Cawnpore also invokes female heroic defiance, and contrasts with the peaceful and resigned demeanour of Paton’s In Memoriam. Although they present two entirely different representations of women – one in violent affray, the other in religious composition – they are both contemporary representations of gender in an imperial context.
In Memoriam is a valuable insight into British attitudes about the Mutiny. However, in terms of historical accuracy, it is inhibited by authorship limitations and influenced by contemporary popular opinion, as Jewarree’s more direct account suggests. This discloses the broader implications for historians of using paintings as a viable medium for contributing to historical knowledge. In Memoriam is a heroic representation that conforms with the wider expectations of British women in an imperial setting, and by employing allegory to transmit this message, the historical reality is potentially undermined and exaggerated to conform with British imperial ideas. Paton himself was not present in India, and so his depiction of events was influenced by personal interpretation and popular assumptions still emotionally potent in the aftermath of the Mutiny when this source was produced. In the absence of accounts by the rebels themselves, In Memoriam contributes, and subscribes, to the historical view that the rebellion was the result of religiously-sensitive mutinous Sepoys, rather than a precursor of nationalism as a number of historians have interpreted the Mutiny. In Memoriam should be examined with these in mind rather than an accurate portrayal of events.
Facts
1) The Indian Mutiny started on the 10th of May 1857 and lasted for two years.
2) The catalyst of the Mutiny was the introduction of new cartridges which were covered in tallow – animal fat. If the fat came from pork it would have been offensive to Muslim soldiers, while if it came from beef it would have been offensive to the Hindu soldiers. Despite the army saying there was no cause for concern about the fat used, rumours spread, causing large scale discontent within the ranks of Indian soldiers.
3) After the rebellion, the British army adopted a policy of “no prisoners”, with many captured rebels being “blown from the guns”.
4) The Indian Mutiny marked the end of the East Indian Company, and for the first time, India was directly ruled by Britain.