"Bonaparte by Corelli Barnett-1997 edition" Topic

I have just received this edition of Barnett's biography of Napoleon and it is exactly the same as the 1978 edition regarding notes and bibliography (they are identical in both copies).

And, as already stated, there are no sources used or listed for the author's remarks on Napoleon as a Jacobin on pages 11, 14, 26, 28, and 89.

The 1997 edition was published by Wordsworth Editions Limited.

So, the following statement by Chouan regarding the 1997 edition, unless there is another one that I am not aware of, is incorrect and should be corrected to reflect the actual state of the 1997 edition of the book in question.

'Only in the copy you have, you've already had it pointed out to you that the 1997 is fully referenced.'

The error is egregious and misleading and the book, both the 1978 and 1997 editions, are not 'fully referenced' or sourced and are nothing more than biased diatribes full of inaccuracies as to facts and paints an inaccurate picture of Napoleon.

B

Wordsworth Editions are almost all reprints, same is true for people like Alan Sutton, Tempus, and Cassell Military paperbacks. Old books given a bit of a makeover and a more modern dust jacket / cover design – and it's actually some book from the 1960s /70's. Sometimes they change the title slightly – and it ends up being some book one already has.

Annoying.

I wouldn't have said Corelli Barnett wrote "diatribes" – he, like most historians – has a viewpoint he wished to push and an argument he wishes to make. That's how history works.

And, as already stated, there are no sources used or listed for the author's remarks on Napoleon as a Jacobin on pages 11, 14, 26, 28, and 89.

Kevin, there is. I posted the reference for you before, but here they are again:

see p.214 (top-left): Masson's 'Napoleon Inconnu' 2 vols 357-84; Chuquet's 'La Jeunesse de Napoleon' 3 Vols p268-94 for 11 & 14; the same volumes for 26 – 28;

for p.89, what he says is 'reverting to type as a Jacobin mob politician'; in context, it is clear that Barnett's remark means 'in a manner of the behavious of Bonaparte in the early 1790s' i.e. the previous references.

I don't understand what your problem is. I can see these references clearly, what *specfically* don't you understand here?

Regards

Quite. When I get back to my office I'll point out some of the references that Brechtel198 doesn't seem to be able to find.

It's very simple, gentlemen, the references you are pointing to do not relate to any comments regarding Napoleon as a Jacobin. Those comments in the text have no footnotes or references.

I now have both editions of the book and they are exactly the same.

I have no idea what you're looking at, but it isn't the two books that I have.

B

This is just crazy…

You asked for sources, you got the two that Barnett cites specifically.

You get the information in the text that Barnett bases his judgements upon:
Napoleon joined the Ajaccio Jacobin club in January 1791 and 'never missed a meeting' (until he left Corsica).

He was secretary of the Valence Republican club.

He wrote a Jacobin pamphlet.

He was an officer in command of Republican volunteers who attempted to close the religious houses and seize the citadel of Ajaccio.

So one might not be surprised if someone mistook him for a Jacobin.

Or do you mean that the problem with Barnett is he gives two sources to cover four whole pages of text? I do hope not, because otherwise you would certainly have to condemn the work of one Col Elting as hopelessly inaccurate and worthless because he didn't footnote *every single sentence* and instead put some references in by chapter.

Barnett has given facts, he has given sources, you simply have no cause here for your complaints.

But they are not cited for the Jacobin comments that Barnett makes in either edition. The Jacobin comments are neither footnoted nor are they stated to be from a source.

What Barnett has done has stated that Napoleon was a Jacobin and not supported it at all.

And where are the 'facts' you state that Barnett has given? I don't see them because they are merely opinions that are not supported by any source.

And unless your 1997 edition is different than mine is (which is exactly the same as the 1978 edition) I cannot figure out where you are finding the sourcing that you cite. It just isn't there.

That source material does not cover four pages of text at all and that is quite evident in the text and the notes. In short, that's nonsense.

And your analogy with Col Elting's work is also nonsense. There are over 700 endnotes in Swords along with naming sources in the text. And I never said anything about sourcing 'every single sentence.'

If you believe that Barnett meant the footnotes to cover four pages of text, have you checked his sources to find that out for yourself? If you haven't, then you don't know whether he did or not. By the method of sourcing, or lack of it, in the book and by what was footnoted and what was not, it is quite evident to me that the notes were not meant to cover four pages of text. And if you like, we can go over them one by one. In short, you're mistaken in your assumption and have misinterpreted what is actually written and footnoted.

And the information on the Jacobin subject has been refuted by Alan Forrest in his much better biography.

B

But they are not cited for the Jacobin comments that Barnett makes in either edition. The Jacobin comments are neither footnoted nor are they stated to be from a source.

They are. I've given them three times.

What Barnett has done has stated that Napoleon was a Jacobin and not supported it at all.

I just gave you them: see pages 11-14, 26 & 27.

And where are the 'facts' you state that Barnett has given? I don't see them because they are merely opinions that are not supported by any source.

No Kevin, what you gave in your 'review' (ROFL) were opinion. Barnett gives facts and then gives his opinions based on his facts. You know, like a real historian.

And unless your 1997 edition is different than mine is (which is exactly the same as the 1978 edition) I cannot figure out where you are finding the sourcing that you cite. It just isn't there.

This has been given to you over and over again. There's non so blind…

> That source material does not cover four pages of text at all and that is quite evident in the text and the notes. In short, that's nonsense.

No, this comment is nonsense. Unless the grounds for your complaint are that the facts Barnett cites are not in the sources he cites. Is this your complaint?

And your analogy with Col Elting's work is also nonsense. There are over 700 endnotes in Swords along with naming sources in the text. And I never said anything about sourcing 'every single sentence.'

Yes, you did: you said "Those comments in the text have no footnotes or references".

So, logically, every time Elting makes a comment that is not supported with a specific direct footnote or reference then it must be just his worthless opinion. I'm sorry you are implying his book is total rubbish, I thought it was quite good.

If you believe that Barnett meant the footnotes to cover four pages of text, have you checked his sources to find that out for yourself? If you haven't, then you don't know whether he did or not. By the method of sourcing, or lack of it, in the book and by what was footnoted and what was not, it is quite evident to me that the notes were not meant to cover four pages of text. And if you like, we can go over them one by one. In short, you're mistaken in your assumption and have misinterpreted what is actually written and footnoted.

I'm not calling into question his source material, you are . If you want to take issue with its factual accuracy, then you go for it with real information to support it. Let's hear from you if you have anything, that might be interesting.

It's possible to get around endless foot notes by referencing in the main text. I don't have this book, but coincidentally have just finished another of Barnett's books – and he does seem to liberally quote within the text and then draw conclusions from these quotes. That's a valid way to write a book.

But that isn't what was done in the book Bonaparte. What is in the book is biased opinions with little or no supporting material for those opinions.

That is not historical inquiry, which is the process of assembling facts and coming to a valid conclusion. That was not done to my mind in the case of this book.

Sincerely,
M

But apparently only to your mind. Odd, that.

Regarding sourcing of the five Jacobin comments in Barnett's Bonaparte on pages 11, 14, 26, 28, and 89, the following is offered:

Page 11: On the 6th and 7th lines of the first paragraph, ‘…in the opinion of Lieutenant Colonel Buonaparte, who was a fervent Jacobin and hater of religion…'

There is no footnote for this comment. In fact, there is no footnote at all on that page which is the first page of the book's Prologue. The first footnote in the book is on the next page, Page 12, after the term ‘putsch' at the beginning of line 16 near the end of the second paragraph. And the footnote on page 214 is an explanatory footnote for the term ‘putsch' and has nothing to do with Jacobinism at all.

Page 14: The first sentence in the sixth paragraph on page 14 (still in the Prologue) ‘There is indeed much more that is revealing of Buonoparte in this abortive Corsican putsch as an obscure provincial Jacobin…'

Again, there is no footnote/source for this statement of Napoleon being a Jacobin. There are only two footnotes in the Prologue, the second one being at the end of the fourth paragraph on Page 14 and having nothing to do with the Jacobin comment referenced here.

Page 26: In the third full paragraph, third and fourth lines, it reads, ‘The royalist officers of the regiment moreover offered only a cool welcome back to their notoriously Jacobin confrere.'

Once again, no footnote sourcing the comment by the author. The only footnote on the page is at the end of the first full paragraph on the page. The next footnote is on the next page (27), three lines from the top of the page, and quotes the Abbe Sieyes and says nothing on Jacobins, Jacobinism, or for that matter, Napoleon.

Interestingly, Napoleon is described, regarding Jacobinism, as ‘an obscure provincial Jacobin on page 14 and as a ‘notoriously Jacobin confrere on page 26. That is at the very least absolutely puzzling.

Page 28: At the end of the third paragraph it reads ‘His second career as a Jacobin politician in Corsica was at an end.'

Again, neither footnote nor source. There are two footnotes on the page, both occurring before this statement. The first is in the first paragraph quoting a statement by Napoleon to a government commissioner. Jacobinism is not mentioned. The second footnote is in the sentence immediately preceding the Jacobin comment in the third paragraph and is a quote from Joseph telling Napoleon that it was ‘the moment for you to return to France' because of the situation in Corsica. Once again, no comment about Jacobinism for the footnote.

Page 89: In the eleventh line from the top of the page, the comment at the beginning of a sentence regarding the Duc d'Enghien, it reads, ‘Reverting to type as Jacobin mob politician…' No footnote, and no source.

There is a footnote seven lines later, but that refers to a comment on d'Enghien made by Lucien Bonaparte, and not about Napoleon's alleged Jacobinism.

In conclusion, it is quite clear that these five comments on Jacobinism referring to Napoleon in the book under discussion are opinion, I submit biased opinion, that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

That brings up the following questions regarding insistence that these comments are supported and that Napoleon was a Jacobin based on these statements in the book.

-You made an error on these statements being supported.

-There is another 1997 edition of the book where the sourcing has been revised and you have it and I do not.

-You have misread the book and the sourcing, mistakes that can easily be made at times.

-You have no idea how to source something historically.

I don't know how or why you're insisting on something that is so clearly in error, but that is known only to you. I'm quite confident that you are just making a mistake, as we all do from time to time.

B

'But apparently only to your mind. Odd, that.'

That is incorrect-there are others that believe the book to be very poor.

B

Kevin,

Footnote 2 to the Prologue says:

This account (my italics) is based on Frederic Masson 'Napoleon Inconnu…' etc…. adn Arthur Chuquet 'La Jeunesse de Napoleon…' etc.

Apart from using the word 'account' how do we know he is talking about the whole prologue? Why, because he cites a passage of 27 pages in the Masson and 26 pages in the Chuquet.

Even better, here you go, enjoy:

CHUQUET:

link

MASSON:

link

I don't know why you think that Barnett should or would source every instance of the word 'Jacobin'. He states facts which indicate Napoleon was a Jacobin (the club memberships and apoointments, the writings, the taking part in rebel politics) and then calls him a 'Jacobin' thereafter in the text for that period.

You have misread the book and the sourcing, mistakes that can easily be made at times.

-You have no idea how to source something historically.

I don't know how or why you're insisting on something that is so clearly in error, but that is known only to you. I'm quite confident that you are just making a mistake, as we all do from time to time.

Nice. You are a classy guy.

Gabriel Feraud: "There are those who say you never loved the Emperor!"

'Footnote 2 to the Prologue says: This account (my italics) is based on Frederic Masson 'Napoleon Inconnu…' etc…. adn Arthur Chuquet 'La Jeunesse de Napoleon…' etc. Apart from using the word 'account' how do we know he is talking about the whole prologue? Why, because he cites a passage of 27 pages in the Masson and 26 pages in the Chuquet.'

For two reasons:

First, the portion of the Prologue referenced by Footnote 2 is condensed from the references (although you linked to Volume I of Masson's book and volume II is in the footnote)-that is quite obvious. I haven't found a reference to Napoleon being a Jacobin yet, but am still looking.

Second, the portion referenced is after the first footnote and both references by Barnett to Napoleon being a Jacobin are outside (before and after) the second footnote. Hence, the Jacobin references are not footnoted and are obviously Barnett's opinion as well as being a biased point against Napoleon in the text here and later.

'I don't know why you think that Barnett should or would source every instance of the word 'Jacobin'. He states facts which indicate Napoleon was a Jacobin (the club memberships and apoointments, the writings, the taking part in rebel politics) and then calls him a 'Jacobin' thereafter in the text for that period.'

The author does not support any reference he makes to Napoleon being a Jacobin and that's one of the main point's of the discussion of Barnett's book and one of the reasons it isn't very good.

Again, it is badly sourced, inaccurate, and very biased.

B

'Nice.'

WW,

I was being 'nice'…

Sincerely,
M

There really is no point with you. Or here.

Brechtel198, I can remember a discussion with you some time ago where I suggested that Elting's work was of limited value because he didn't reference his sources. You defended him, arguing that we shouldn't doubt his research. Yet now you are arguing that Barnett's work, and research, is poor because of what you describe as inadequate referencing.
Nevertheless, you yourself have offered sound evidence that Buonaparte was a Jacobin, which you, in this and other threads, deny. If Buonaparte was a member of the Jacobin Club, as you have proved, then Barnett's argument that he was indeed a Jacobin is proved, so why are you so exercised about his saying so? Why are you complaining about lack of referencing, apart from the argument about whether his referencing is adequate or not, when you already know that Buonaparte was a Jacobin?