Biographies of Napoleon Worth Reading

@Kevin F. Kiley even poorly written memoirs contain verifiable facts and data points. Sources that are “credible” (not a black and white binary description I like to use, I find such thinking a symptom of a rigid and inflexible mindset) even they contain errors. That’s why footnotes are so important in secondary works rather than long florid passages of hyperbole and praise which usually characterises hagiography. So let’s analyse the effect of removing Bourrienne and Marmont would be: Criteria 1 (Grandiose self-importance) we lose 2 data points of 5, but it remains well evidenced Criteria 2 (fantasies of unlimited success etc) One data point lost. Still stands. Criteria 3 (belief of special) No effect. Still stands. Criteria 5. (Sense of entitlement) Two data points lost out of 6 but sufficient evidence found. Criteria 6. (Interpersonally exploitative) 3 lost out of 6 quoted, but an additional 36 considered so was still the easiest to discern. Criteria 7. (Lacks empathy) 4 of the 8 quoted used Bourrienne but 40 additional passages also supported it. Criteria 9 (Arrogance) 3 out of the 8 quoted sources lost and with over 80 additional points means the criteria stands. As only 5 are needed it seems that even if 100% of the data from these sources are spurious, it does not support reversing of the clinical opinion. There is therefore no material effect. All data quoted is from ‘The Spirit and the Sword’ pages 20-33

Agreed @Zack White but the demonising comment came before he mentioned Dwyer, and I specifically asked for a response that distanced us from it. The conflation of metal health and demons is biblical and medieval. Are we to suffer it to continue to exist in the 21st century? All evil requires to prosper is that good men do nothing.

I'm becoming a bit weary of the "glorification" of Ed Coss as the be-all-and-end-all of the alleged psychoanalysis of Napoleon. I also think the attempt to analyze any historical figure, particularly those who have been dead for several centuries, is an exercise in ridiculousness and produces nothing but psychobabble, a word I am quite fond of because it applies to quit a few folks writing these days. I already posted several weeks ago exactly what I thought of Coss, and I won't repeat it. However, I also said I thought Napoleon had a streak of narcissism a mile wide, plus a couple of other issues, but guess what? I figured that out all by myself by reading lots and lots of books, articles, manuscripts, and other document over decades and in English, French, German, and Spanish. I didn't need some man with a Ph.D. from OHU--I have one from FSU--to tell me that he thought Naps has serious mental issues.

At the end of the day, I second Hans-Karl's opinion that most of the Brit-centric folks who loathe Napoleon are missing out on an opportunity to expand their dislike because they can't read German or Dutch or Russian, or even French. And while Dwyer is a good author to read if you want the opposite of hagiography, he is a sloppy historian. One does not deliberately cherry-pick one's sources to support a theory already firmly developed before the research even begins. The same applies to those who really, really like Napoleon.

Let's move on from Coss, shall we? He is a historian, not a scientist nor a mental health professional. He simply presented one of several papers at an inaugural conference; he did not invent the wheel. And as for an "eye-opening" view of Napoleon's alleged mental health, I would agree that it is, but not in the laudatory manner I believe was meant here.

@tomholmberg I appreciate your ‘if the cap fits wear it’ style, however saying someone may have faced mental health challenges is not demonising. For the sake of mental health stigma in the here and now, I must ask you to either withdraw or explain please.

So all above cited biographies of Kevin Kiley are worthwhile to read because they fawn Nabulieone?

I find most biographies a waste of time there you only read the bias of the author.

I see - that even that of Tulard it not even mentioned.

My favourite though is

Presser, Jacques : Napoleon - Da Leben und die Legende

Wie konnte ein Offizier, dessen Aufstieg zum Herrscher über Europa von Verbrechen und Korruption, Grausamkeit und Nepotismus begleitet war, zum grossen Helden emporstilisiert werden, dem selbst kritische Geister (here I disagree neither of both were critical) wie Goethe oder Heine höchste Verehrung zuteil werden liessen? Diese Frage drängt sich in unserem Jahrhundert (then 20th century) um so eher auf, als wie selbst von jeglicher Bewunderung für Diktatoren dieses Formats geheilt sein sollten. Und doch lebt der Napoleon - Mythos unvermindert weiter.
Diesen Mythos zu zerstören, die schlimmen Seiten von Napoleons Gewaltherrschaft darzustellen, ist das Ziel dieser brillant geschriebenen Biographie. Presser will den "anderen" Napoleon zeigen, den herrschsüchtigen, tyrannischen Diktator, den skrupellosen, blutigen Eroberer, den Unterdrücker fremder Völker.

One of Presser's most significant works was his extensive biography of Napoleon Bonaparte, first published in 1946. In contrast to the common hagiographies of the French emperor, Presser is quite critical of the personality, and the political and military activity of Napoleon. Already in the introduction to the book, Presser makes quite clear that one of his main intentions is to try and dispel various euphemisms and legends about Napoleon. Presser depicts him as a ruthless autocrat and the axis of a group of marauders: his marshals. Napoleon comes to the fore as the organizer of the first modern dictatorship, which became an example for all later dictatorships. The book also contains extensive chapters on the pillars in French society which he used to strengthen his rule: Propaganda, Police & Justice, the Church, Education and, of course, the Army. Finally, Presser describes the legends about Napoleon in various countries. (This work is only available currently in Dutch and in German.)

other then the usual boney fawning blurb of Cronin here a cirtical evaluation.

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.
 
Reviewed by Susan Howard.
Placed on the Napoleon Series: November 2005

A pity that the best biography, in my view, that of Presser is only available in Dutch and German, there in case you are no Anglophone and don't publish in Anglospeak, such works are ignored.

I find Patrice Gueniffey's "Bonaparte" very interesting, even if only the years 1769 to 1802 are dealt with so far. With over 1000 pages, the work is very detailed and balanced in my opinion. I hope that Gueniffey will add another book on the Empire over the next few years.

On the old Napoleon Series from 2017, examination of one specific topic did reveal that, in his Napoleon biography at any rate, Professor Roberts' attitude to providing valid references in support of his narrative was somewhat cavalier. On a single page, not one footnote bore any relation to the assertion to which it was attached, let alone support it. Something of an eye opener. I seem to remember that in that regard Vincent Cronin did not come out of it too well, either, although at least he did not cite Dr. Ibid.

Kevin, I’m afraid I’m rather ridiculous therefore, as I prefer biography to hagiography. My copy of Cronin was swiftly donated after reading to Oxfam, as I foresaw little utility in it’s retention. I haven’t found I’ve missed it. I’ve retained Roberts and Broers, because being a little newer they have more references and up to date research. I tend not to agree with many conclusions though. As the 100 days are my main area of interest, I’m looking forward Broers next instalments in his series. I suppose it would be difficult to write a biography about someone you disliked, so many biographers tend to be at least sympathetic, if not positive. We should also face commercial facts: hagiography sells! The problem I face is that I’m interested in Napoleon the man, not so much the legend and legacy. These only give glimpses. The fact that they at best excuse, but often just ignore Napoleon’s narcissistic personality disorder makes them too selective for my liking. That’s like writing about Louis XVIII and not mentioning his weight problem. Zack Thank you for the Dwyer recommendations. I’ll make the effort to broaden my horizons. I’m a skeptic when it comes to the legend and legacy but I try to keep at least a semblance of balance. As Napoleon appears to be the most written about individual outside of theology, I’m sure the debate will rumble on long after we are all gone!

I would respectfully submit the suggestion that, even if only to ensure variety in one's reading diet, some Philip Dwyer would be useful.

(He says fully expecting to jumped on by those who aren't a fan of the anti-Napoleon interpretation). 😉🤣