There are two ‘subjects’ that have influenced the study of the period 1792-1815, for both good or ill: historical revisionism and hagiography. Unfortunately, both have been used, or more accurately, misused when discussing the period in general and Napoleon in particular. The following comments on historical revisionism are taken from historyplex.com/historical-revisionism-influence-history and hopefully can shed some light on what historical revisionism actually is and how it affects the study of history.
Definition of historical revisionism: ‘Critical reexamination of historical facts with or without new evidence. Historical revisionism pertains to the act of altering historical facts for benevolent or malevolent reasons.’
‘Revisionism describes the process of critically reviewing established theories and suggesting amendments. It comes into play when newer findings contradict older theories, or when a mistake is discovered in the previously held explanations during reexamination. Revisionism is important for maintaining the accuracy of human knowledge.’
‘The study of history is a part of social and natural sciences. In it, facts and information about the past are gathered through various means, such as studying old documents, analyzing ancient artifacts, etc. Through this information, historical theories are formed.’
‘Like any other scientific theory, historical theories too are subject to change when newer facts and information emerges which contradicts them in part or whole. Historical revisionism is the practice of reexamining historical theories.’
‘The following are the cases when historical revisionism is useful.
1) When through research, new historical data and evidence surfaces, the current theories and conclusions must to be reassessed to verify their validity. 2) When governments disclose previously banned documents or information to the public. 3) When ancient languages are deciphered, which makes it possible to study ancient writings in greater detail. 4) New scientific technologies and instruments help in better analysis of the ages and authenticity of old artifacts. 5) When cultural changes make it possible to examine historical events with a new perspective.’
‘Historical revisionism allows past events to be reviewed in an objective and non-biased manner. This is usually done by academicians and historians who are eager to learn the actual chain of events from the past. With the help of authentic documents, proven facts, and other supportive pieces of evidence, they are able to critically examine historical theories.’
‘Once enough evidence on specific histories has been gathered, respective amendments are suggested, and are put up for review by recognized historians and other authorities. If these changes are approved, they become part of the accepted history, and are no longer considered to revisionists.’
‘However, with all the benefits of historical revisionism, there is also the chance of it being abused. Sly politicians, deceitful historians, or other such shady personalities may possibly make deliberate attempts to distort or rewrite history in order to stir up a conspiracy or wrongfully obtain some benefit out of it. This the reason why the practice of revisionism and revisionist theories are often viewed in a bad light.’
‘Most modern-day revisionist historians do legitimate work. However, just as other branches of science have to deal with pseudosciences, historians too have to deal with illegitimate historical revisionists theories.’
‘Thus, the practice of revisionism can have both, a good as well as a bad influence on history. Revising history in an objective way is beneficial in learning the actual truth. This type of revision in history, supported by concrete evidences and facts, is known as legitimate historical revisionism. However, if the revisionist theory is based on loose facts or non-existent evidences, then it is known as illegitimate historical revisionism, which can lead to distortion history, lead people astray, and also cause a number of social and political issues.’
Definition of Hagiography: (From Webster's Dictionary).
1: biography of saints or venerated persons.
2: idealizing or idolizing biography.
Hagiography for the Napoleonic period is usually employed as an accusation against an author or a work when it is a sympathetic work towards a historic personality. A case in point is Vincent Cronin’s excellent biography of Napoleon, which is sympathetic to Napoleon. The accusation of hagiography is usually leveled at the book by those who characterize Napoleon in a negative light. Cronin’s work does not fit the above definition.
That ‘attitude’ is ahistorical and usually inaccurate, and with that inaccuracy the subject then tends to gravitate to bad and inaccurate revisionism as explained above.
I have come across a couple of videos on Youtube, where key issues are discussed rationally. The first is about the (ab)use of the term "revisionist" by a WW2 guy, who explains that it is a historian's job to revise history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruqt8uv__18 The second is about the development of the philosophy of history, looking at how ideas develop to produce objectivity, although it does conclude that objective history is what is "agreed upon" (now who said that?!). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVm3eNMmCMY
On the causes of hagiography. One of the problems with an approach like Cronin’s is that the internal view of a person’s character is often confused with the external view of their relationships and achievements. It is the halo effect, someone who is outstanding in their field must be a nice person. It comes from our internal reasoning. I am essentially a good person who tries their best, so everything I do must be correct. When we make errors this creates a cognitive dissonance. In relieving that dissonance we can stray away from logical reasoning and self justification kicks in. As we see from sports stars to celebrities, hagiography at work. “He is a great quarterback/actor/comedian, he does great charity work, he can’t possibly have beaten his wife” Problem is, that is not how reality works. Good people, sometimes with the most noble of intentions, can do bad things. Some unpleasant characters can be highly competent and make truly outstanding contributions. However, this does not ring true with us, because we are good people, and if we accept that truth we will have to admit we make mistakes and can do bad things. If we are to prevent the human propensity for hagiography (or it’s alter ego, demonisation) we have to learn to turn off that self-justification voice. Or at least distance ourselves from what it says. We have to feel psychologically safe to think the unthinkable and confident enough to reject it based on the evidence. History is often portrayed as revealing the past. What we display often says more about ourselves and our own inabilities for growth. If we still believe “I am a good and unbiased historian therefore every I think and write is good and unbiased history and everyone who disagrees with me is a bad and biased historian” then we are on the slippery slope to hagiography or demonisation.
That ‘attitude’ is ahistorical and usually inaccurate, and with that inaccuracy the subject then tends to gravitate to bad and inaccurate revisionism as explained above.
What attitude is ahistorical, Cronin's - in case of
Critical reexamination of historical facts with or without new evidence'
in case then yes it is - as Susan Howards re view shows.
In Moscow we learn that Napoleon "was convinced that he and Alexander could be close friends again,"
In case Cronin is right in this, which I don't think he is, Nabulieone is looking like a man who lost his wits.
The key logical error the Historyplex article has made is to conflate the normal historical enquiry process with confirmation bias driven conspiracy theory/Holocaust denial. They differ in one crucial way, how they deal with disconfirming evidence. In good solid historical enquiry disconfirming evidence is not only acknowledged, but sought. Conclusions are made therefore on weighed evidence and the balance of probabilities. Conspiracy theorists and deniers either merely ignore contrary or disconfirming evidence or acknowledge it only tacitly. Because of their self-justification echo chamber approach they should not be allowed to crawl under the same “revisionist” blanket the article gives it as genuine history. The difference is not because of the “authorities” (whoever they are?) or “accepted history” (whatever that is?) but the fault is in the methodology itself. The very fact the article uses this rather naive language may display the lack of intellectual and scholarly rigour within it?
The first rule of evaluating evidence, who is providing it and why. Who wrote the quoted article? Who are the editorial board of historyplex.com? Does anyone know their quality or peer review policy (if any)? Buzzle.com Inc appears to be a for profit platform only. In the absence of such information, the only barrier to publication is paying the appropriate godaddy fee. So why are we supposed to take this article as in any way authoritative? A forum posting on here has to be under our own name, so bring attributable should in theory be more credible than an anonymous website article.
scourge of repetition again all over, Susan Howard wrote on the old side a competent article about the hagiography of Cronin and where is his biography excellent? Other than to learn how Nabulieone is cleaning his teeth?
One has to revise history all the day, especially when new sources come up - it was note than overdue to do this with the history of WW2 about the Eastern Front by Halder, Manstein or even Guderian.
Those historians who expose those as frauds - are ignored.
Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography
Cronin, Vincent. Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography. NY: Morrow/London, UK: Collins, 1971. 480 pages. ISBN# 0002115603. Hardback.
In his Preface the writer explains that this is a study of Napoleon's character, an attempt to "picture a living, breathing man." The military campaigns are only outlined, although civil matters are dealt with in more depth; it is the author's declared intention to concentrate on events that throw light on Napoleon's character. He has taken an interesting line in pursuing the romantic, imaginative aspect of Napoleon's personality, one which is often neglected. Napoleon's reading material is described, as are his early writings; an essay on happiness, a ghost story and a romantic, tragic novel. There is much on the development of 'Corsican attitudes and values' notably the sense of justice and its 'dark side,' revenge; also thrift, honour and courage. It is the author's argument that these traits were persistent throughout Napoleon's life and that "he guided his life by two principles: Republicanism and honour." This is the distinctive feature of this biography, so I will look at this aspect, and the author's presentation of it, rather than the handling of the major historical events.
In the first few chapters an attractive picture of Napoleon is created which is easily maintained through the early military career. In this light the relationship with Josephine appears more convincing than in some other versions. Up to the Consulate the book follows chronological order; after that each chapter covers a separate aspect of Napoleonic rule, reverting to chronological order with the 1812 campaign. The personal aspect is stressed throughout, and there are interesting character points still to make in the final chapters, such as a rather fine account of the prolonged game Napoleon played on St Helena with Sir Hudson Lowe, "Napoleon, in short, liked to pose as a victim of injustice, knowing full well that he was the master, Lowe the victim." In contrast we are shown the phenomenon of unpleasant accusations about the women in his life as fantasy due to loneliness and humiliation and the Corsican influence appearing again in the accusation of assassination against the 'English oligarchy' in his will.
One of the author's key points is the rebuttal of the Bourrienne quote: "Friendship is only a word." He discusses the number and quality of Napoleon's friendships and his reluctance to break with a friend. The chapters on the 1812 campaign place much emphasis on Napoleon's relationship with Alexander of Russia, the friendship theme is played very strongly here with the suggestion that Napoleon "felt keen personal disappointment" when Alexander kept letting him down. In Moscow we learn that Napoleon "was convinced that he and Alexander could be close friends again," but that his failure to appreciate the situation was due to "a certain insensitivity in human relationships." That last remark is, considering the circumstances, a fine example of the author's capacity for understatement. Napoleon's belief that his marriage relationship to the Austrian Emperor would secure the support of Austria in 1813 was to end in yet more disappointment; "Napoleon was just not enough of a cynic or of a psychologist."
The chapters describing Napoleon's achievements as ruler and lawgiver may well be correct in substance, but the style gives cause for concern. Over controversial matters Napoleon is given the benefit of the doubt every time, his motives are always presented as benign, although a few character defects, such as impatience, dislike of criticism and in later life, over-optimism, are admitted. For instance, Napoleon's use of censorship and press control was "a mark of weakness Napoleon would be more attractive if he had been able to rise above that weakness." And again: "Napoleon's guiding purpose in the Empire was to export liberty, equality, justice and sovereignty of the people," is qualified a little later by "It is true there were blots on the imperial picture. Too often Napoleon acted brusquely, while Jerome overspent" There is much about the benefits of the Empire, the Code Napoleon, tax reform, hospitals, liberalisation of trade etc. and doubtless much of it is true. However, because of the continued wars, which are accepted as being defensive in nature, "Napoleon was obliged to impose heavy taxes and, in Germany, conscription. He was obliged to cut off imports of overseas goods"
Cronin's system is to produce a rose-tinted picture of events by missing out anything unpleasant. Censorship is deplored, yet the extent of control is understated and no mention is made of the interception of private letters. During Napoleon's quarrel with the Pope (Chapter 14) we learn that the pope was 'removed' to Savona, and later, 'transferred' to Fontainebleau; words such as 'prisoner' and 'captivity' just do not occur. In Chapter 6 it is said, admiringly, that "the Buonapartes believed in love" and the example is given of Lucien marrying for love "at the cost of his political career." The omission is that Lucien's career was wrecked because Napoleon ordered him to put aside his wife so that he could make a dynastic marriage, and he refused, this shows the true value Napoleon placed on love and honour.
Cronin's version of the overthrow of the Spanish monarchy (Chapter 17) is very brief, "...a popular rising against Godoy sent the royal family scurrying into exile in France. Napoleon accepted Charles' abdication in 1808 and made Spain a kingdom within the French Empire." There is no mention of the French armies already occupying Spain nor of the pressures exerted to get the Spanish royal family into French territory, much less of the violent repression of Spanish objections. It is not explained why a convinced republican should have chosen to impose a king on the people of Spain.
The statement that republicanism and honour were the guiding principles of Napoleon's life is repeated throughout the book in various forms; this raises obvious questions about the Imperial crown. It is said that it was possible to be emperor of a Republic because the ancient Romans used this form; but we are told that it was at his own insistence that Napoleon had a religious consecration, and adopted the symbols of the Frankish kings. He also took the crown of Italy, put monarchs of his own family in charge of Holland, Naples, Spain and Westphalia and named his infant son 'King of Rome'. This is all in the book, the demise of the existing Republics being left unexplained. One may believe that Napoleon had republican principles as a young man; but it seems evident that he discarded them once in power.
Honour is here defined as 'the love of glory in pursuit of virtue', but it is not clear exactly what either Napoleon or the author mean by it. Napoleon clearly believed in the concept of honour, talked about it a lot and used it as an argument, but it is hard to find an instance where he allowed it to interfere with his aims. It is shown that in 1795 to avoid serving with the Army of the West he took sick leave, then a desk job, and made attempts to go to Russia or Turkey. This does not suggest the 'love of honour and love of the French Republic' upon which the author insists. Cronin also writes of Marie Waleska: "Honour and republicanism had mingled with passion to make this one of the most important relationships of his life." Given Napoleon's views on the importance of marriage and of virtue in women, what honour is there in seducing a previously virtuous married woman from her husband by exploiting her patriotism?
Cronin's version of events, he states, is based on "a critical evaluation of sources." Appendix A discusses the reliability of Napoleonic memoirs, explaining why some frequently used sources are of little value. The source of his explanations is not given, so it is difficult to assess them. It is poor logic though, to say that because Marmont betrayed Napoleon his reasons for the betrayal must be invalid, this prejudges both parties. Cronin says: 'the above nine writers are, I believe, unreliable sources, and I have treated them with extreme caution. Normally I have drawn on them only for statements which they had no reason to distort and which are backed up by more impartial evidence.' There is a risk here that the material used is selected because it agrees with the author's viewpoint; why not just use the 'more impartial evidence'? One source used in the boyhood section is the Notebooks of Alexandre de Mazis, but we are not told the origin of this text nor why we should consider it reliable; those who claim to have been at school with the subsequently famous are not always the most truthful.
There are no footnotes with the text but each chapter has notes and sources in the back of the book. Sometimes the source of a statement is linked to the paragraph in the text, but often it cannot be identified. In Chapter 2 it is stated that "We have three authentic incidents from the Brienne years." Turning to the notes, it would appear that the source for the 'Brienne years' is Masson's Napoleon Inconnu, no primary source for the incidents related is given. More seriously, in Chapter 16 the arrest of the duc d'Enghien is described and the statements of d'Enghien, which implicate him in the plot, are given in direct speech, which would lead us to expect a primary source, but a check with the notes gives: A. Boulay de la Meurthe, Les dernieres annees du duc d'Enghien, 1886. This gives us no idea where Boulay de la Meurthe got his information. A wide variety of sources are quoted, many of them are secondary, including other biographies. The only chapter which seems to be largely based on primary sources is Chapter 15, on the Treaty of Amiens and its rupture.
The use of the primary sources is very selective: I can find passages in Caulaincourt, Gourgaud and Bertrand which contradict the author's views, yet he includes these as his reliable sources. He also includes Lecestre's Lettres inedites de Napoleon I omitted from the original Correspondance because they show the Imperial rule at its worst. One wonders if Cronin actually read them, since they are incompatible with his picture of Napoleon as idealistic and honourable, a heroic figure with just enough flaws to make him human. To talk of "blots on the imperial picture" is the most feeble of understatements when the picture is completely wiped out by reading Napoleon's own words.
'Critical reexamination of historical facts with or without new evidence' Sounds like history to me
The issue we have is that, as you allude to, accusations of 'revisionism for its own sake' and hagiography are often dependent on perspective. I would contest that those who write sympathetically about Napoleon are 'usually' accused of hagiography. The point at which such a comment starts to stick is when (as we so often see) writers fixate on the guy's virtues, whilst deliberately ignoring, or seeking to explain away his failings. At those moments, the failure to be balanced and dispassionate ends up generating scepticism - after all, being balanced in part of the process.