2. Presented by
• R.Masilamani
• Leadership & management educator and
consultant
• Licensed and trained by four leadership
institutions of international repute
• Prolific speaker, trainer and consultant in six
management areas
• Reads and writes and webcasts regularly on
topics of management and leadership
10/9/2013
2
3. Quote
"Leaders don't create
followers, they create
more leaders.“- tom peters
I love that quote because it gets
at the heart of what leadership
is really about - developing
people
10/9/2013
3
4. Whether,
*a mom is feeding her
young,
*a teacher is giving a
lesson to first grade
students, or
*a manager is setting goals
with an employee
10/9/2013
4
5. They all have one
thing in common
That one thing is a desire
for the child, student or
employee to succeed;
to become more than
they realized they could
be.
Leaders develop leaders!
10/9/2013
5
6. Okay, so you're a
leader. How do you
become a better
one?
10/9/2013
6
7. Quiz - What's Your Leadership Style?
Answer the following 18 questions to asses
your leadership qualities
Learn more about your leadership style.
10/9/2013
7
10. Question 1: I have the final say over
decisions made within my group.
a) Most of the time
b) Absolutely
c) I let group members make their
own decisions
10/9/2013
10
11. Question 2: I consider
suggestions made by others in
the group.
a) Always
b) Never
c) Most of the time
10/9/2013
11
12. Question 3: I tell group
members what to do, how to do
it, and when I want it done.
a) All of the time
b) Occasionally
c) Rarely
10/9/2013
12
13. Question 4: If a group member
makes a mistake, they are
reprimanded or punished.
a) Absolutely
b) Rarely. Mistakes are a sign that a
new strategy is needed.
c) Almost never. Group members can
resolve problems on their own
10/9/2013
13
14. Question 5: I carefully watch group
members to be sure they are
performing tasks properly
.
a) Somewhat. I offer guidance if it is
needed.
b) Always
c) Never. Group members know more
about their job than I do
10/9/2013
14
15. Question 6: Group members need
clear rewards and punishments in
order to complete tasks and meet
goals.
a) Somewhat agree. They also need to feel
involved and committed to the process.
b) Agree
c) Disagree. Group members should
establish their own goals and objectives.
10/9/2013
15
16. Question 7: Group members are
motivated by a need for security.
a) Yes
b) Somewhat
c) No
10/9/2013
16
17. Question 8: I accept input from
group members.
a) Never. I don't have time to worry about
other people's ideas.
b) Yes, but I have the final say over all
decisions.
c) Absolutely. I allow group members to
guide the decision-making process
.
10/9/2013
17
18. Question 9: I ask for advice from
group members when things go
wrong.
a) No
b) Often. I want input from group
members when resolving problems.
c) Yes, and I let group members resolve
problems on their own.
10/9/2013
18
19. Question 10: I want group
members to feel involved and
relevant in the decision-making
process.
a) All of the time
b) Never
c)Much of the time
10/9/2013
19
20. Question 11: I want to help group
members fulfill their potential.
a) Not really
b) Absolutely
c) Occasionally
10/9/2013
20
21. Question 12: I prefer when
decisions are made through
group consensus.
a) Never
b) Occasionally
c) Always
10/9/2013
21
22. Question 13: Big decisions should
have the approval of the majority
of the group.
a) Always
b) Never. Group leaders are in charge
of making decisions.
c) Sometimes. Group members should
offer input.
10/9/2013
22
23. Question 14: I let group
members decide what needs to
be done and how to do it.
a) Never
b) Occasionally
c) Always
10/9/2013
23
24. Question 15 : I allow group
members to carry out their role
with little of my input. They know
more about their job than I do.
a) Disagree
b) Neutral
c) Agree
10/9/2013
24
25. Question 16: When there are problems in
the group, I work with members to arrive
at a reasonable resolution.
a) Never. I will decide how to fix the
problem.
b) Always. Group members should
work together to fix the problem.
c) Oftentimes. Group members should
offer suggestions
10/9/2013
25
26. Question 17: I entrust tasks to
other group members.
a) Most of the time
b) Never
c) Often
10/9/2013
26
27. Question 18: I allow other group
members to share my leadership
power.
a) No
b) Yes
c) Somewhat
10/9/2013
27
30. Kurt Lewin’s
Leadership Styles
• Autocratic or
Authoritarian
Leadership
• Participative or
Democratic Leadership
• Delegative or Laissez
Faire Leadership
10/9/2013
30
32. Great leaders need to
adapt and change based
upon the objectives,
needs of group members,
and situational factors.
You can find more
information in this article
on leadership styles.
10/9/2013
32
34. Delegative Leadership
Delegative leaders allow group
members to make decisions. This
style is best used in situations
where the leader needs to rely on
qualified employees. The leader
cannot be an expert in all
situations, which is why it is
important to delegate certain tasks
out to knowledgeable and
trustworthy group members
10/9/2013
34
35. COMMENT
Remember, good leaders utilize all
three styles depending upon the
situation. For example:
Use an authoritative style if a
group member lacks knowledge
about a certain procedure.
Use a participative style with group
members who understand the
objectives and their role in the task.
Use a delegative style if the group
member knows more than you do
about the task.
10/9/2013
35
36. Delegative leaders offer little or
no guidance to group members
and leave decision-making up
to group members. While this
style can be effective in
situations where group
members are highly qualified in
an area of expertise, it often
leads to poorly defined roles
and a lack of motivation.
10/9/2013
36
37. 2nd OPINION
If your results
indicate that your
leadership style
is predominately:
Participative
10/9/2013
37
38. Participative
Leadership
Participative leaders accept input from
one or more group members when
making decisions and solving problems,
but the leader retains the final say when
choices are made. Group members tend
to be encouraged and motivated by this
style of leadership. This style of
leadership often leads to more effective
and accurate decisions, since no leader
can be an expert in all areas. Input from
group members with specialized
knowledge and expertise creates a more
complete basis for decision-making
10/9/2013
38
39. COMMENT
Remember, good leaders utilize all three
styles depending upon the situation. For
example:
Use an authoritative style if a group
member lacks knowledge about a certain
procedure.
Use a participative style with group
members who understand the objectives
and their role in the task.
Use a delegative style if the group
member knows more than you do about
the task.
10/9/2013
39
40. Participative leaders
encourage group members
to participate, but retain
the final say over the
decision-making process.
Group members feel
engaged in the process and
are more motivated and
creative.
10/9/2013
40
41. 3rd OPINION
If your results
indicate that your
leadership style is
predominately:
Autocratic:
10/9/2013
41
42. Autocratic Leadership
• Autocratic leadership, also known as
authoritarian leadership, is
a leadership style characterized by
individual control over all decisions
and little input from group
members. Autocratic leaders
typically make choices based on
their own ideas and judgments and
rarely accept advice from followers.
Learn more about some of the
characteristics, benefits and
downsides ofautocratic leadership.
•
10/9/2013
42
43. COMMENT
Remember, good leaders utilize all
three styles depending upon the
situation. For example:
Use an authoritative style if a group
member lacks knowledge about a
certain procedure.
Use a participative style with group
members who understand the
objectives and their role in the task.
Use a delegative style if the group
member knows more than you do
about the task.
10/9/2013
43
44. Authoritarian leadership
is best applied to
situations where there is
little time for group
decision-making or where
the leader is the most
knowledgeable member
of the group.
10/9/2013
44
46. What Is Autocratic
Leadership?
By
Kendra Cherry, About.com Guide
Autocratic leadership
involves having total
control over a group.
Image courtesy Sanja Gjenero
10/9/2013
46
47. What Is Democratic
Leadership?
By Kendra Cherry, About.com Guide
Democratic leadership
involves allowing
members of the group to
share and contribute ideas.
Photo by Aldomurillo/ iStockPhoto
10/9/2013
47
48. What Is Laissez Faire
Leadership?
By Kendra Cherry, About.com Guide
Laissez faire leadership
involves giving group
members the freedom
to make their own
decisions
Toam Nulens / iStockPhoto
10/9/2013
48
53. WATCH the TRUTH
This video struck me as not only a beautiful
example of nature and motherhood, but also a
powerful leadership lesson as well. Watch
towards the end when the last little bird leaves
the nest. Her job is complete! She doesn't receive
anything but the satisfaction that she did all she
could to help each of her young to fly.
What thoughts came to you as you watched this
video around leadership and even teamwork?
(Video is for authorised use only)
10/9/2013
53
Kurt LewinKurt Lewin (1890-1947) was a social psychologist whose extensive work covered studies of leadership styles and their effects, work on group decision-making, the development of force field theory, the unfreeze/change/refreeze change management model, action research, and the group dynamics approach to training, especially in the form of T-Groups.Life and careerThe German-born Kurt Lewin was Professor of Philosophy and Psychology at Berlin University until he fled to the United States in 1932 to escape from the Nazis. There, he taught at Cornell University, and then at Iowa, becoming Professor of Child Psychology at the latter's Child Research Station. In 1944, with Douglas McGregor and others, Lewin founded the Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (now based at the University of Michigan).Key theoriesLeadership styles and their effectsWith colleagues L. Lippitt and R. White, Lewin carried out studies relating to the effects of three different leadership styles on outcomes of boys' activity groups in Iowa (1939). Three different styles were classified as democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire. It was found that in the group with an autocratic leader, there was more dissatisfaction and behaviours became either more aggressive or apathetic. In the group with a democratic leader, there was more co-operation and enjoyment, while those in the laissez-faire led group showed no particular dissatisfaction, though they were not particularly productive either.Significantly, when the respective leaders were asked to change their styles, the effects for each leadership style remained similar. Lewin aimed to show that the democratic style achieved better results. The possibility of social and cultural influences undermines his finding to some extent, but the studies nevertheless suggested the benefits of a democratic style in an American context. They also showed that it is possible for leaders and managers to change their styles, and to be trained to improve their leadership and adopt appropriate management styles for their situation and context.Group decision makingAfter the Second World War, Lewin carried out research for the United States Government, exploring ways of influencing people to change their dietary habits towards less popular cuts of meat. He found that, if group members were involved in and encouraged to discuss the issues themselves, and were able to make their own decisions as a group, they were far more likely to change their habits than if they had just attended lectures giving appropriate information, recipes and advice.Force field analysisLewin's force field theory viewed people's activity as affected by forces in their surrounding environment, or field.Three main principles of force field theory are that:behaviour is a function of the existing fieldanalysis starts from the complete situation and distinguishes its component partsa concrete person in a concrete situation can be mathematically represented.Force field analysis is used extensively for purposes of organisational and human resource development, to help indicate when driving and restraining forces are not in balance, so that change can occur.Lewin's force field analysis technique can be used to help distinguish whether factors within a situation or organisation are driving forces for change or restraining forces that will work against desired changes. Examples of driving forces might be impulses such as ambition, goals, needs or fears that drive a person towards or away from something. Restraining forces are viewed by Lewin as different in their nature, in that they act to oppose driving forces, rather than comprising independent forces in themselves.The interplay of these forces creates the stable routine of normal, regular activities, which are described by Lewin as quasi-stationary processes. In day-to-day situations, the driving and restraining forces balance out and equalise to fluctuate around a state of equilibrium for an activity. Achieving change involves altering the forces that maintain this equilibrium. To bring about an increase in productivity, for example, changes in the forces currently keeping production at its existing quasi-stationary levels would be required, through taking one of two alternative routesstrengthening the driving forces - for example, paying more money for more productivityrestraining inhibiting factors - for example, simplifying production processes.Strengthening the drives would seem the most obvious route to take, but analysis would show that this could lead to the development of countervailing forces, such as employee concern about tiredness, or worry about new targets becoming a standard expectation. In contrast, reducing restraining forces - for example through investment in machinery or training to make the process easier - may be a less obvious, but more rewarding approach, bringing about change with less resistance or demoralisation.Lewin identified two questions to ask when seeking to make changes within the framework of force field analysis:1. Why does a process continue at its current level under the present circumstances?2. What conditions would change these circumstances?For Lewin, circumstances has a very broad meaning, and covers social context and wider environment, as well as sub-groups, and communication barriers between groups. The position of each of these factors represents a group's structure and ecological setting. Together, the structure and setting will determine a range of possible changes that depend on, and can to some degree be controlled through, the pacing and interaction of forces across the entire field - that is, the force field.Model of change: Unfreeze-change-refreezeLewin's change management model is linked to force field analysis. He considered that, to achieve change effectively, it is necessary to look at all the options for moving from the existing present to a desired future state, and then to evaluate the possibilities of each and decide on the best one, rather than just aiming for the desired goal and taking the straightest and easiest route to it.Lewin's model encourages managers to beware of two kinds of forces of resistance deriving, firstly, from social habit or custom; and, secondly, from the creation of an inner resistance to change.The two different kinds of forces of resistance are rooted in the interplay between a group as a whole and the individuals within it, and only driving forces that are strong enough to break the habits, challenge the interests or unfreeze the customs of the group will overcome the forces of resistance. As most members will want to stay within the behavioural norms of the group, individual resistance to change will increase as a person is induced to move further away from current group values.In Lewin's view, this type of resistance can be lowered either by reducing the value the group attaches to something, or by fundamentally changing what the group values. He considered a complex, stepped process of unfreezing, changing and refreezing beliefs, attitudes and values to be required to achieve change, with the initial phase of unfreezing normally involving group discussions in which individuals experience others' views, and begin to adapt their own.Since Lewin's death, Unfreeze-change-refreeze has sometimes been applied more rigidly than he intended, for example through discarding an old structure, setting up a new one, and then fixing this into place. Such an inflexible course of action fits badly with more modern perspectives on change as a continuous and flowing process of evolution, and Lewin's change model is now often criticised for its linearity, especially from the perspective of more recent research on nonlinear, chaotic systems and complexity theory. The model was, however, process-oriented originally, and Lewin himself viewed change as a continuing process, recognising that extremely complex forces are at work in group and organisational dynamics.T-groupsWhat is now known as the T-Group (or Training Group) approach was pioneered by Lewin when, in 1946, he was called in to try to develop better relations between Jewish and Black communities in Connecticut. Bringing such groups of people together was, Lewin found, a powerful way to expose areas of conflict, so that established behaviour patterns could unfreeze prior to potentially changing and refreezing. He called these learning groups T-Groups.This training approach became particularly popular during the 1970s. Some interpreters of the method, however, may have used it in a more confrontational way than Lewin possibly intended.Action researchLewin's action research approach is linked to T-groups. Introduced during the 1940s, it was seen as an important innovation in research methods and was especially used in industry and education. Action research involves experimenting by making changes and simultaneously studying the results, in a cyclic process of planning, action and fact-gathering. Lewin's approach emphasised the power relationship between the researcher and those researched, and he sought to involve the latter, encouraging their participation in studying the effects of their own actions, identifying of their own biases, and working to transform relationships in their community or organisation.Action research centres on the involvement of participants from the community under research and on the pursuit of separate but simultaneous processes of action and evaluation. Different variations of this approach have evolved since Lewin's day, and its validity as a scientific research method is sometimes questioned. Its strengths, however, in offering groups or communities an involving, self-evaluative, collaborative and decision-making role, are widely accepted.In perspectiveLewin is well-recognised as a seminal figure in social psychology, though his early death obscured his central role in the development of the managerial human relations movement. In the United States and the United Kingdom, especially through the work of the Tavistock Institute, much subsequent management thinking and research has been influenced by Lewin's approaches and ideas. These, following in the tradition of Mayo's 1920s and 1930s Hawthorne studies, underlie the whole current field of organisational development and change management.Further readingThe following are all available from The British Library: type the title into the search box on the right to check availability. Members of CMI can borrow them from CMI's library, seehttp://www.managers.org.uk/library or emailbookloans@managers.org.ukKey works by Kurt LewinBooks and book chaptersA dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936Group decision and social change. In Newcomb, T. and Hartley, E., eds. Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, 1947Resolving social conflicts: selected papers on group dynamics. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948Journal articlesFrontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1 (1), 1947, pp.5-41Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4) 1946, pp.34-46Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally created 'social climates'. With R. Lippitt and R. White. Journal of Social Psychology, 10 (1) 1939, pp.71-99Key works by othersBooksGold, M., ed. The complete social scientist: a Kurt Lewin reader. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1999Cartwright, D., ed. Field theory in social science. London: Tavistock Publications, 1952 (reprinted 1963)Marrow, A. The practical theorist: the life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books, 1969Journal articlesCooke, B. Writing the left out of management theory: the historiography of the management of change. Organization, 6 (1) 1999, pp.81-105Likert, R. Kurt Lewin: a pioneer in human relations research.Human Relations, 1 (2) 1947, pp.131-140Schein, E. Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes toward a model of managed learning.Systems Practice, 1995. Available athttp://www.solonline.org/res/wp/10006.html [Accessed 23 July 2010]Liden, R. and Antonakis, J. Considering context in psychological leadership research. Human Relations 62 (11) 2009, pp.1587-1605. Available athttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/62/11/1587.full.pdf+html[Accessed 23 July 2010]WebsitesKurt Lewin's dynamic approach ruleThis is the first in a four-part series of articles by Dr Jean Neumann of the Tavistock Institute, summarising one of Lewin's key ideas here on the MBS Portal. Kurt Lewin Institutehttp://www.kurtlewininstituut.nlResearch Center for Group Dynamics, University of Michiganhttp://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/Tavistock Institute of Human Relations: Group Relations websitehttp://www.grouprelations.com/index.phpTavistock Institute websitehttp://www.tavinstitute.org
Lewin's Leadership StylesThree Major Styles of LeadershipBy Kendra Cherry, About.com GuideAds: Leadership Styles Effective Leadership Leadership Traits Leadership Theories Leadership & ManagementOne classic study identified three main types of leadership: authoritarian, participative, and delegative.Image: SanjaGjeneroAdsNama-NamaAnak IslamDumex.com.my/MamaClubHow Do You Decide? See How Other Mums Decide.Corporate Leadershipwww.john-walsh.comJohn Walsh - CEO of Modern Media Miracles. Read more now!We Want Malaysian Authorswww.TraffordPublishing.com.sg/MYStart Publishing Your Book. Get A Free Book Publishing Guide Now!See More Aboutleadership styleskurtlewinauthoritative leadershipdelagative leadershipdemocratic leadershipAdsNlp Training Coursewww.humandy.comPioneer In Human Potential Dev't And Personal Transformation.Call UsEmployee Performance Mgmtwww.BusinessPlanning.my/SME-TalentGoals,Appraisals,Ratings Build Efficient Workforce.In 1939, a group of researchers led by psychologist Kurt Lewin set out to identify different styles of leadership. While further research has identified more specific types of leadership, this early study was very influential and established three major leadership styles. In the study, schoolchildren were assigned to one of three groups with an authoritarian, democratic or laissez-fair leader. The children were then led in an arts and crafts project while researchers observed the behavior of children in response to the different styles of leadership.Authoritarian Leadership (Autocratic)Authoritarian leaders, also known as autocratic leaders, provide clear expectations for what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. There is also a clear division between the leader and the followers. Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little or no input from the rest of the group.Researchers found that decision-making was less creative under authoritarian leadership. Lewin also found that it is more difficult to move from an authoritarian style to a democratic style than vice versa. Abuse of this style is usually viewed as controlling, bossy, and dictatorial.Authoritarian leadership is best applied to situations where there is little time for group decision-making or where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group.Participative Leadership (Democratic)Lewin’s study found that participative leadership, also known as democratic leadership, is generally the most effective leadership style. Democratic leaders offer guidance to group members, but they also participate in the group and allow input from other group members. In Lewin’s study, children in this group were less productive than the members of the authoritarian group, but their contributions were of a much higher quality.Participative leaders encourage group members to participate, but retain the final say over the decision-making process. Group members feel engaged in the process and are more motivated and creative.Delegative (Laissez-Faire) LeadershipResearchers found that children under delegative leadership, also known as laissez-fair leadership, were the least productive of all three groups. The children in this group also made more demands on the leader, showed little cooperation and were unable to work independently.Delegative leaders offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to group members. While this style can be effective in situations where group members are highly qualified in an area of expertise, it often leads to poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.Observations"The autocratic-authoritarian cluster encompasses being arbitrary, controlling, power-oriented, coercive, punitive, and close-minded. The cluster has often been described in pejorative terms. Stripped of negatives (emphasized by so many social scientists), it means taking full and sole responsibility for decision and control of followers' performance. Autocrats stress obedience, loyalty, strict adherence to roles. They make and enforce the rules. They see that decision are carried out. Powerful autocratic leaders throughout history have often been praised for their ability to develop reliable and devoted followers and to act as the principal authority figures in establishing and maintaining order."(Bass & Bass, 2008)"The democratic or egalitarian leadership cluster reflects concern about the followers in many different ways. Leadership is considerate, democratic, consultative and participative, employee-centered, concerned with people, concerned with maintenance of good working relations, supportive and oriented toward facilitating interaction, relationship oriented, and oriented toward group decision making."(Bass & Bass, 2008)Did You Know?By visiting the rest of the Psychology site you can find a wealth of free psychology articles and resources, which include:Blog and Weekly Feature StoriesFree Psychology Newsletter and E-CoursesDiscussion BoardsPsychology Tests and QuizzesReferences:Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New York: Free Press.Lewin, K., Lippit, R. and White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-301Learn More About LeadershipLeadership TheoriesQuiz - What's Your Leadership Style?What Is Transformational Leadership?More Leadership StylesAutocratic LeadershipDemocratic LeadershipWhat Is Transactional Leadership?Kurt LewinKurt Lewin BiographyKurt Lewin QuotesRelated ArticlesOverview of Lewin's Leadership Styles VideoQuiz - What's Your Leadership Style? [About Psychology]Laissez-Faire Leadership - What Is Laissez-Faire Leadership10 Ways to Become a Better LeaderWhat Are the Participative Leadership Theories? Video
Autocratic leadership, also known as authoritarian leadership, is a leadership style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. participative leadership, also known as democratic leadership, is generally the most effective leadership style Democratic leaders offer guidance to group members, but they also participate in the group and allow input from other group members.Authoritarian leaders, also known as autocratic leaders, provide clear expectations for what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done There is also a clear division between the leader and the followers. Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little or no input from the rest of the group.hree major leadership styles. In the study, schoolchildren were assigned to one of three groups with an authoritarian, democratic or laissez-fair leader. The children were then led in an arts and crafts project while researchers observed the behavior of children in response to the different styles of leadership.Authoritarian Leadership (Autocratic)Authoritarian leaders, also known as autocratic leaders, provide clear expectations for what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. There is also a clear division between the leader and the followers. Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little or no input from the rest of the group.Researchers found that decision-making was less creative under authoritarian leadership. Lewin also found that it is more difficult to move from an authoritarian style to a democratic style than vice versa. Abuse of this style is usually viewed as controlling, bossy, and dictatorial.Authoritarian leadership is best applied to situations where there is little time for group decision-making or where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group.Participative Leadership (Democratic)Lewin’s study found that participative leadership, also known as democratic leadership, is generally the most effective leadership style. Democratic leaders offer guidance to group members, but they also participate in the group and allow input from other group members. In Lewin’s study, children in this group were less productive than the members of the authoritarian group, but their contributions were of a much higher quality.Participative leaders encourage group members to participate, but retain the final say over the decision-making process. Group members feel engaged in the process and are more motivated and creative.Delegative (Laissez-Faire) LeadershipResearchers found that children under delegative leadership, also known as laissez-fair leadership, were the least productive of all three groups. The children in this group also made more demands on the leader, showed little cooperation and were unable to work independently.Delegative leaders offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to group members. While this style can be effective in situations where group members are highly qualified in an area of expertise, it often leads to poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.Observations"The autocratic-authoritarian cluster encompasses being arbitrary, controlling, power-oriented, coercive, punitive, and close-minded. The cluster has often been described in pejorative terms. Stripped of negatives (emphasized by so many social scientists), it means taking full and sole responsibility for decision and control of followers' performance. Autocrats stress obedience, loyalty, strict adherence to roles. They make and enforce the rules. They see that decision are carried out. Powerful autocratic leaders throughout history have often been praised for their ability to develop reliable and devoted followers and to act as the principal authority figures in establishing and maintaining order."(Bass & Bass, 2008)"The democratic or egalitarian leadership cluster reflects concern about the followers in many different ways. Leadership is considerate, democratic, consultative and participative, employee-centered, concerned with people, concerned with maintenance of good working relations, supportive and oriented toward facilitating interaction, relationship oriented, and oriented toward group decision making."(Bass & Bass, 2008)Did You Know?By visiting the rest of the Psychology site you can find a wealth of free psychology articles and resources, which include:Blog and Weekly Feature StoriesFree Psychology Newsletter and E-CoursesDiscussion BoardsPsychology Tests and Quizzes
Leadership StylesLeadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. Kurt Lewin (1939) led a group of researchers to identify different styles of leadership. This early study has been very influential and established three major leadership styles: (Lewin, LIippit, White 1939, U.S. Army Handbook, 1973):autocratic or authoritarianparticipative or democraticdelegative or laissez-fairAlthough good leaders use all three styles, with one of them normally dominant, bad leaders tend to stick with one style (normally autocratic).Authoritarian (autocratic)I want both of you to. . .This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. Some of the appropriate conditions to use it is when you have all the information to solve the problem, you are short on time, and your employees are well motivated.Some people tend to think of this style as a vehicle for yelling, using demeaning language, and leading by threats and abusing their power. This is not the authoritarian style, rather it is an abusive, unprofessional style called “bossing people around.” It has no place in a leader's repertoire.The authoritarian style should normally only be used on rare occasions. If you have the time and want to gain more commitment and motivation from your employees, then you should use the participative style.Participative (democratic)Let's work together to solve this. . .This style involves the leader including one or more employees in the decision making process (determining what to do and how to do it). However, the leader maintains the final decision making authority. Using this style is not a sign of weakness, rather it is a sign of strength that your employees will respect.This is normally used when you have part of the information, and your employees have other parts. A leader is not expected to know everything—this is why you employ knowledgeable and skillful employees. Using this style is of mutual benefit as it allows them to become part of the team and allows you to make better decisions.Delegative (laissez faire)You two take care of the problem while I go. . .In this style, the leader allows the employees to make the decisions. However, the leader is still responsible for the decisions that are made. This is used when employees are able to analyze the situation and determine what needs to be done and how to do it. You cannot do everything! You must set priorities and delegate certain tasks.This is not a style to use so that you can blame others when things go wrong, rather this is a style to be used when you fully trust and confidence in the people below you. Do not be afraid to use it, however, use it wisely!NOTE: Laissez Faire (or lais·ser faire) is the noninterference in the affairs of others. [French : laissez, second person pl. imperative of laisser, to let, allow + faire, to do.]ForcesA good leader uses all three styles, depending on what forces are involved between the followers, the leader, and the situation. Some examples include:Using an authoritarian style on a new employee who is just learning the job. The leader is competent and a good coach. The employee is motivated to learn a new skill. The situation is a new environment for the employee.Using a participative style with a team of workers who know their job. The leader knows the problem, but does not have all the information. The employees know their jobs and want to become part of the team.Using a delegative style with a worker who knows more about the job than you. You cannot do everything and the employee needs to take ownership of her job! In addition, this allows you to be at other places, doing other things.Using all three: Telling your employees that a procedure is not working correctly and a new one must be established (authoritarian). Asking for their ideas and input on creating a new procedure (participative). Delegating tasks in order to implement the new procedure (delegative or laissez faire).Forces that influence the style to be used included:How much time is available.Are relationships based on respect and trust or on disrespect?Who has the information—you, your employees, or both?How well your employees are trained and how well you know the task.Internal conflicts.Stress levels.Type of task. Is it structured, unstructured, complicated, or simple?Laws or established procedures such as OSHA or training plans.Positive and Negative ApproachesThere is a difference in ways leaders approach their employee. Positive leaders use rewards, such as education, independence, etc. to motivate employees. While negative employers emphasize penalties. While the negative approach has a place in a leader's repertoire of tools, it must be used carefully due to its high cost on the human spirit.Negative leaders act domineering and superior with people. They believe the only way to get things done is through penalties, such as loss of job, days off without pay, reprimanding employees in front of others, etc. They believe their authority is increased by frightening everyone into higher levels of productivity. Yet what always happens when this approach is used wrongly is that morale falls; which of course leads to lower productivity.Also note that most leaders do not strictly use one or another, but are somewhere on a continuum ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative. People who continuously work out of the negative are bosses while those who primarily work out of the positive are considered real leaders.Use of Consideration and StructureTwo other approaches that leaders use are:Consideration (employee orientation) — leaders are concerned about the human needs of their employees. They build teamwork, help employees with their problems, and provide psychological support.Structure (task orientation) — leaders believe that they get results by consistently keeping people busy and urging them to produce.There is evidence that leaders who are considerate in their leadership style are higher performers and are more satisfied with their job (Schriesheim, 1982).Also notice that consideration and structure are independent of each other, thus they should not be viewed on a continuum. For example, a leader who becomes more considerate, does not necessarily mean that she has become less structured.See Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid as it is also based on this concept.PaternalismPaternalism has at times been equated with leadership styles. Yet most definitions of leadership normally state or imply that one of the actions within leadership is that of influencing. For example, the Army uses the followingdefinition:Leadership is influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.The Army further goes on by defining “influence” as:A means of getting people to do what you want them to do. It is the means or method to achieve two ends: operating and improving. But there is more to influencing than simply passing along orders. The example you set is just as important as the words you speak. And you set an example—good or bad—with every action you take and word you utter, on or off duty. Through your words and example, you must communicate purpose, direction, and motivation.While “paternalism” is defined as (Webster):A system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as individuals as well as in their relationships to authority and to each other.Thus paternalism supplies needs for those under its protection or control, while leadership gets things done. The first is directed inwards, while the latter is directed outwards.GeertHofstede (1997) studied culture within organizations. Part of his study was on the dependence relationship orPower Difference—the extent to which the less powerful members of an organization expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Hofstede gave this story to illustrate this Power Difference:The last revolution in Sweden disposed of King Gustav IV, whom they considered incompetent, and surprising invited Jean Baptise Bernadotte, a French general who served under Napoleon, to become their new King. He accepted and became King Charles XIV. Soon afterward he needed to address the Swedish Parliament. Wanting to be accepted, he tried to do the speech in their language. His broken language amused the Swedes so much that they roared with laughter. The Frenchman was so upset that he never tried to speak Swedish again.Bernadotte was a victim of culture shock—never in his French upbringing and military career had he experienced subordinates who laughed at the mistakes of their superior. This story has a happy ending as he was considered very good and ruled the country as a highly respected constitutional monarch until 1844. (His descendants still occupy the Swedish throne.)Sweden differs from France in the way its society handles inequality (those in charge and the followers). To measure inequality or Power Difference, Hofstede studied three survey questions from a larger survey that both factored and carried the same weight:Frequency of employees being afraid to express disagreement with their managers.Subordinates' perception of their boss's actual decision making style (paternalistic style was one choice).Subordinates' preference for their boss's decision-making style (again, paternalistic style was one choice).He developed a Power Difference Index (PDI) for the 53 countries that took the survey. Their scores range from 11 to 104. The higher the number a country received, the more autocratic and/or paternalistic the leadership, which of course relates to employees being more afraid or unwilling to disagree with their bosses. While lower numbers mean a more consultative style of leadership is used, which translates to employees who are not as afraid of their bosses.For example, Malaysia has the highest PDI score, being 104, while Austria has the lowest with 11. And of course, as the story above illustrates, Sweden has a relative low score of 31, while France has a PDI of 68. The USA's is 40. Note that these scores are relative, not absolute, in that relativism affirms that one culture has no absolute criteria for judging activities of another culture as “low” or “noble”.Keeping the above in mind, it seems that some picture paternalistic behavior as almost a barbaric way of getting things accomplished. Yet, leadership is all about getting things done for the organization. And in some situations, a paternalistic style of decision-making might be required; indeed, in some cultures and individuals, it may also be expected by not only those in charge, but also the followers. That is what makes leadership styles quite interesting—they basically run along the same continuum as Hofstede's PDI, ranging from paternalistic to consultative styles of decision making. This allows a wide range of individual behaviors to be dealt with, ranging from beginners to peak performers. In addition, it accounts for the fact that not everyone is the same.However, when paternalistic or autocratic styles are relied upon too much and the employees are ready and/or willing to react to a more consultative type of leadership style, then it normally becomes quite damaging to the performance of the organization.Next StepsActivity: How to determine your leadership style — Leadership Style SurveyGrowing a TeamMain Leadership MenuReferencesHofstede, Geert (1997). Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind new York: McGraw-Hill.Lewin, K., LIippit, R. and White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-301Newstrom, John W. & Davis, Keith (1993). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill.Schriesheim, Chester A. The Great High Consideration: High Initiating Structure Leadership Myth: Evidence on its Generalizability. The Journal of Social Psychology, April 1982, 116, pp. 221-228.ReturnU.S. Army Handbook (1973). Military Leadership.
Ayn RandFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAyn RandAyn Rand in 1957BornAlisaZinov'yevna RosenbaumFebruary 2, 1905Saint Petersburg, Russian EmpireDiedMarch 6, 1982 (aged 77)New York City, New York, U.S.RestingplaceKensico Cemetery, Valhalla, New York, U.S.PennameAynRandOccupationWriterLanguageEnglishEthnicityRussianJewishCitizenshipRussia (1905-1922)Soviet Union (1922-1931)United States (1931-1982)Alma materPetrograd State UniversityPeriod1934–1982SubjectsPhilosophyNotable work(s)The FountainheadAtlas ShruggedNotable award(s)Prometheus Award – Hall of Fame1983 Atlas Shrugged1987 AnthemSpouse(s)Frank O'Connor(m. April 15, 1929 – November 7, 1979; his death)SignatureAyn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/;[1] born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was an Americannovelist, philosopher,[2] playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, Rand moved to the United States in 1926. She worked as a screenwriter in Hollywood and had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936. After two early novels that were initially unsuccessful in America, she achieved fame with her 1943 novel, The Fountainhead.In 1957, she published her best-known work, the novel Atlas Shrugged. Afterward, she turned to non-fiction to promote her philosophy, publishing her own magazines and releasing several collections of essays until her death in 1982. Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism, and rejected ethical altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral[3] and opposed collectivism and statism as well as anarchism, instead supporting a minarchist limited government and laissez-faire capitalism, which she believed to be the only social system that protectedindividual rights. In art, Rand promoted romantic realism. She was sharply critical of most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her, except for some Aristotelians and classical liberals.[4]Literary critics received Rand's fiction with mixed reviews,[5] and academia generally ignored or rejected her philosophy. The Objectivist movement attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings.[6] She has been a significant influence amonglibertarians and American conservatives.[7]Contents [hide] 1 Life1.1 Early life1.2 Arrival in America1.3 Early fiction1.4 The Fountainhead and political activism1.5 Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism1.6 Later years2 Philosophy3 Reception and legacy3.1 Reviews3.2 Popular interest3.3 Political influence3.4 Academic reaction3.5 Objectivist movement4 Selected works5 References5.1 Works cited6 External linksLifeEarly lifeRand was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Russian: АлисаЗиновьевнаРозенбаум) on February 2, 1905, to a Russian Jewishbourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg. She was the eldest of the three daughters of ZinovyZakharovich Rosenbaum and his wife, Anna Borisovna (née Kaplan), largely non-observant Jews. Zinovy Rosenbaum was a successful pharmacist and businessman, eventually owning a pharmacy and the building in which it was located.[8] With a passion for the liberal arts, Rand found school unchallenging, and said she began writing screenplays at the age of eight and novels at the age of ten.[9] She was twelve at the time of the February Revolution of 1917, during which she favored Alexander Kerensky over Tsar Nicholas II.The subsequent October Revolution and the rule of the Bolsheviks under Vladimir Lenin disrupted the comfortable life the family had previously enjoyed. Her father’s business was confiscated and the family displaced. They fled to the Crimea, which was initially under control of the White Army during the Russian Civil War. She later recalled that, while in high school, she determined that she was anatheist and that she valued reason above any other human virtue. After graduating from high school in the Crimea at 16, Rand returned with her family to Petrograd (the new name for Saint Petersburg), where they faced desperate conditions, on occasion nearly starving.[10][11]Rand completed a three-year program atPetrograd State University.After the Russian Revolution, universities were opened to women, allowing Rand to be in the first group of women to enroll at Petrograd State University,[12] where she studied in the department of social pedagogy, majoring in history.[13] At the university she was introduced to the writings of Aristotle and Plato,[14] who would be her greatest influence and counter-influence, respectively.[15] A third figure whose philosophical works she studied heavily was Friedrich Nietzsche.[16] Able to read French, German and Russian, Rand also discovered the writers Fyodor Dostoevsky, Victor Hugo, Edmond Rostand, and Friedrich Schiller, who became her perennial favorites.[17]Along with many other "bourgeois" students, Rand was purged from the university shortly before graduating. However, after complaints from a group of visiting foreign scientists, many of the purged students were allowed to complete their work and graduate,[18] which Rand did in October 1924.[19] She subsequently studied for a year at the State Technicum for Screen Arts in Leningrad. For one of her assignments, she wrote an essay about the Polish actress PolaNegri, which became her first published work.[20]By this time she had decided her professional surname for writing would be Rand,[21] possibly as a Cyrillic contraction of her birth surname,[22] and she adopted the first name Ayn, either from a Finnish name or from the Hebrew word עין (ayin, meaning "eye").[23]Cover of Rand's first published work, a 2,500-word monograph on femme fatalePolaNegri published in 1925.[20]Arrival in AmericaIn 1925, Rand was granted a visa to visit American relatives. She was so impressed with the skyline of Manhattan upon her arrival in New York Harbor that she cried what she later called "tears of splendor".[24] Intent on staying in the United States to become a screenwriter, she lived for a few months with relatives in Chicago, one of whom owned a movie theater and allowed her to watch dozens of films for free. She then set out for Hollywood, California.[25]Initially, Rand struggled in Hollywood and took odd jobs to pay her basic living expenses. A chance meeting with famed director Cecil B. DeMille led to a job as an extra in his film The King of Kings as well as subsequent work as a junior screenwriter.[26] While working onThe King of Kings, she met an aspiring young actor, Frank O'Connor; the two were married on April 15, 1929. Rand became an American citizen in 1931. Taking various jobs during the 1930s to support her writing, she worked for a time as the head of the costume department at RKO Studios.[27] She made several attempts to bring her parents and sisters to the United States, but they were unable to acquire permission to emigrate.[28]Early fictionSee also: Night of January 16th, We the Living, and Anthem (novella)Rand's first literary success came with the sale of her screenplay Red Pawn to Universal Studios in 1932, although it was never produced.[29] This was followed by the courtroom drama Night of January 16th, first produced by E.E. Clive in Hollywood in 1934 and then successfully reopened on Broadway in 1935. Each night the "jury" was selected from members of the audience, and one of the two different endings, depending on the jury's "verdict", would then be performed.[30] In 1941, Paramount Pictures produced a movie loosely based on the play. Rand did not participate in the production and was highly critical of the result.[31]Rand's first novel, the semi-autobiographical We the Living, was published in 1936. Set in Soviet Russia, it focused on the struggle between the individual and the state. In a 1959 foreword to the novel, Rand stated that We the Living "is as near to an autobiography as I will ever write. It is not an autobiography in the literal, but only in the intellectual sense. The plot is invented, the background is not..."[32] Initial sales were slow and the American publisher let it go out of print,[33] although European editions continued to sell.[34] After the success of her later novels, Rand was able to release a revised version in 1959 that has since sold over three million copies.[35] Without Rand's knowledge or permission, the novel was made into a pair of Italian films, Noivivi and Addio, Kira, in 1942. Rediscovered in the 1960s, these films were re-edited into a new version which was approved by Rand and re-released as We the Living in 1986.[36]Her novella Anthem was written during a break from the writing of her next major novel, The Fountainhead. It presents a vision of a dystopian future world in which totalitariancollectivism has triumphed to such an extent that even the word 'I' has been forgotten and replaced with 'we'.[37] It was published in England in 1938, but Rand initially could not find an American publisher. As with We the Living, Rand's later success allowed her to get a revised version published in 1946, which has sold more than 3.5 million copies.[38]The Fountainhead and political activismSee also: The Fountainhead and The Fountainhead (film)During the 1940s, Rand became politically active. Both she and her husband worked full-time in volunteer positions for the 1940 presidential campaign of Republican Wendell Willkie. This work led to Rand's first public speaking experiences, including fielding the sometimes hostile questions from New York City audiences who had just viewed pro-Willkienewsreels, an experience she greatly enjoyed.[39] This activity also brought her into contact with other intellectuals sympathetic to free-market capitalism. She became friends with journalist Henry Hazlitt and his wife, and Hazlitt introduced her to the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Despite her philosophical differences with them, Rand strongly endorsed the writings of both men throughout her career, and both of them expressed admiration for her. Once Mises referred to Rand as "the most courageous man in America", a compliment that particularly pleased her because he said "man" instead of "woman".[40] Rand also developed a friendship with libertarian writer Isabel Paterson. Rand questioned the well-informed Paterson about American history and politics long into the night during their numerous meetings and gave Paterson ideas for her only nonfiction book, The God of the Machine.[41]Rand's first major success as a writer came with The Fountainhead in 1943, a romantic and philosophical novel that she wrote over a period of seven years.[42] The novel centers on an uncompromising young architect named Howard Roark and his struggle against what Rand described as "second-handers"—those who attempt to live through others, placing others above self. It was rejected by twelve publishers before finally being accepted by the Bobbs-Merrill Company on the insistence of editor Archibald Ogden, who threatened to quit if his employer did not publish it.[43] While completing the novel, Rand was prescribed the amphetamine Benzedrine to fight fatigue.[44] The drug helped her to work long hours to meet her deadline for delivering the finished novel, but when the book was done, she was so exhausted that her doctor ordered two weeks' rest.[45] Her continued use of the drug for approximately three decades may have contributed to what some of her later associates described as volatile mood swings.[46]The Fountainhead eventually became a worldwide success, bringing Rand fame and financial security.[47] In 1943, Rand sold the rights for a film version to Warner Bros., and she returned to Hollywood to write the screenplay. Finishing her work on that screenplay, she was hired by producer Hal Wallis as a screenwriter and script-doctor. Her work for Wallis included the screenplays for the Oscar-nominated Love Letters and You Came Along.[48] This role gave Rand time to work on other projects, including a planned nonfiction treatment of her philosophy to be called The Moral Basis of Individualism. Although the planned book was never completed, a condensed version was published as an essay titled "The Only Path to Tomorrow", in the January 1944 edition of Reader's Digest magazine.[49]Wikisource has original text related to this article:Ayn Rand's testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American ActivitiesRand extended her involvement with free-market and anti-communist activism while working in Hollywood. She became involved with theMotion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, a Hollywood anti-Communist group, and wrote articles on the group's behalf. She also joined the anti-Communist American Writers Association.[50] A visit by Isabel Paterson to meet with Rand's California associates led to a final falling out between the two when Paterson made comments that Rand saw as rude to valued political allies.[51]In 1947, during the Second Red Scare, Rand testified as a "friendly witness" before the United States House Un-American Activities Committee. Her testimony described the disparity between her personal experiences in the Soviet Union and the portrayal of it in the 1944 film Song of Russia.[52] Rand argued that the film grossly misrepresented conditions in the Soviet Union, portraying life there as being much better and happier than it actually was.[53] She wanted to also criticize the lauded 1946 film The Best Years of Our Lives for what she interpreted as its negative presentation of the business world, but she was not allowed to testify about it.[54] When asked after the hearings about her feelings on the effectiveness of the investigations, Rand described the process as "futile".[55]After several delays, the film version of The Fountainhead was released in 1949. Although it used Rand's screenplay with minimal alterations, she "disliked the movie from beginning to end", complaining about its editing, acting, and other elements.[56]Atlas Shrugged and ObjectivismSee also: Atlas Shrugged, Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and Objectivist movementIn the years following the publication of The Fountainhead, Rand received numerous letters from readers, some of whom it profoundly influenced. In 1951 Rand moved from Los Angeles to New York City, where she gathered a group of these admirers around her. This group (jokingly designated "The Collective") included future Federal Reserve ChairmanAlan Greenspan, a young psychology student named Nathan Blumenthal (later Nathaniel Branden) and his wife Barbara, and Barbara's cousin Leonard Peikoff. At first the group was an informal gathering of friends who met with Rand on weekends at her apartment to discuss philosophy. Later she began allowing them to read the drafts of her new novel,Atlas Shrugged, as the manuscript pages were written. In 1954 Rand's close relationship with the younger Nathaniel Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses.[57]Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, was considered Rand's magnum opus.[58] Rand described the theme of the novel as "the role of the mind in man's existence—and, as a corollary, the demonstration of a new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest."[59] It advocates the core tenets of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and expresses her concept of human achievement. The plot involves a dystopian United States in which the most creative industrialists, scientists and artists go on strike against an oppressive government that is a caricature of communism, and retreat to a mountainous hideaway where they build an independent free economy. The novel's hero and leader of the strike,John Galt, describes the strike as "stopping the motor of the world" by withdrawing the minds of the individuals most contributing to the nation's wealth and achievement. With this fictional strike, Rand intended to illustrate that without the efforts of the rational and productive, the economy would collapse and society would fall apart. The novel includes elements of romance,[60][61] mystery, and science fiction,[62] and it contains Rand's most extensive statement of Objectivism in any of her works of fiction, a lengthy monologue delivered by Galt.Despite many negative reviews, Atlas Shrugged became an international bestseller, and in an interview with Mike Wallace, Rand declared herself "the most creative thinker alive".[63] After completing the novel, Rand fell into a severe depression.[64] Atlas Shrugged was Rand's last completed work of fiction; a turning point in her life, it marked the end of Rand's career as a novelist and the beginning of her role as a popular philosopher.[65]In 1958 Nathaniel Branden established Nathaniel Branden Lectures, later incorporated as the Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI), to promote Rand's philosophy. Collective members gave lectures for NBI and wrote articles for Objectivist periodicals that she edited. Rand later published some of these articles in book form. Critics, including some former NBI students and Branden himself, have described the culture of NBI as one of intellectual conformity and excessive reverence for Rand, with some describing NBI or the Objectivist movement itself as a cult or religion.[66] Rand expressed opinions on a wide range of topics, from literature and music to sexuality and facial hair, and some of her followers mimicked her preferences, wearing clothes to match characters from her novels and buying furniture like hers.[67] Rand was unimpressed with many of the NBI students[68] and held them to strict standards, sometimes reacting coldly or angrily to those who disagreed with her.[69] However, some former NBI students believe the extent of these behaviors has been exaggerated, with the problem being concentrated among Rand's closest followers in New York.[70]Later yearsThroughout the 1960s and 1970s, Rand developed and promoted her Objectivist philosophy through her nonfiction works and by giving talks to students at institutions such as Yale,Princeton, Columbia,[71] Harvard, and MIT.[72] She received an honorary doctorate from Lewis & Clark College in 1963.[73] She also began delivering annual lectures at the Ford Hall Forum, responding afterward to questions from the audience.[74] During these speeches and Q&A sessions, she often took controversial stances on political and social issues of the day. These included supporting abortion rights,[75] opposing the Vietnam War and the military draft (but condemning many draft dodgers as "bums"),[76] supporting Israel in theYom Kippur War of 1973 against a coalition of Arab nations as "civilized men fighting savages",[77] saying European colonists had the right to take land from American Indians,[78]and calling homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting", while also advocating the repeal of all laws about it.[79] She also endorsed several Republican candidates for President of the United States, most strongly Barry Goldwater in 1964, whose candidacy she promoted in several articles for The Objectivist Newsletter.[80]Grave marker for Rand and her husband at Kensico Cemetery in Valhalla, New YorkIn 1964 Nathaniel Branden began an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. Nathaniel and Barbara Branden kept the affair hidden from Rand. When she learned of it in 1968, though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended,[81]Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens, which led to the closure of NBI.[82] Rand published an article in The Objectivistrepudiating Nathaniel Branden for dishonesty and other "irrational behavior in his private life".[83] Branden later apologized in an interview to "every student of Objectivism" for "perpetuating the Ayn Rand mystique" and for "contributing to that dreadful atmosphere of intellectual repressiveness that pervades the Objectivist movement."[84] In subsequent years, Rand and several more of her closest associates parted company.[85]Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[86] In 1976 she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, was persuaded to allow Evva Pryor, a consultant from her attorney's office, to sign her up for Social Securityand Medicare.[87] During the late 1970s her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.[88] One of her final projects was work on a never-completed television adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.[89]Rand died of heart failure on March 6, 1982, at her home in New York City,[90] and was interred in the Kensico Cemetery, Valhalla, New York.[91] Rand's funeral was attended by some of her prominent followers, including Alan Greenspan. A six-foot floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket.[92] In her will, Rand named Leonard Peikoff the heir to her estate.[93]PhilosophyObjectivist movementPhilosophy[show]Organizations[show]Theorists[show]Literature[show]Related topics[show]Philosophy portalv t eMain article: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism," describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."[94] She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy and esthetics.[95]In metaphysics, Rand supported philosophical realism, and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion.[96] In epistemology, she considered all knowledge to be based on sense perception, the validity of which she consideredaxiomatic,[97] and reason, which she described as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."[98] She rejected all claims of non-perceptual or a priori knowledge, including "'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing.'"[99] In herIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand presented a theory of concept formation and endorsed the rejection of the analytic–synthetic dichotomy.[100]In ethics, Rand argued for rational and ethical egoism (rational self-interest), as the guiding moral principle. She said the individual should "exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."[101] She referred to egoism as "the virtue of selfishness" in her book of that title,[102] in which she presented her solution to the is-ought problem by describing a meta-ethical theory that based morality in the needs of "man's survival qua man."[103] She condemned ethical altruism as incompatible with the requirements of human life and happiness,[104] and held that the initiation of force was evil and irrational, writing in Atlas Shrugged that "Force and mind are opposites."[105]Rand's political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights),[106] and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights.[107] She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship.[108] Rand believed that rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.[109] Although her political views are often classified asconservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism." She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics.[110] She denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism.[111] She rejected anarchism as a naïve theory based in subjectivism that could only lead to collectivism in practice.[112]Rand's esthetics defined art as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." According to Rand, art allows philosophical concepts to be presented in a concrete form that can be easily grasped, thereby fulfilling a need of human consciousness.[113] As a writer, the art form Rand focused on most closely was literature, where she considered Romanticism to be the approach that most accurately reflected the existence of human free will.[114] She described her own approach to literature as "romantic realism".[115]Rand acknowledged Aristotle as her greatest influence[116] and remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's"—Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand.[117] In a 1959 interview with Mike Wallace, when asked where her philosophy came from, she responded, "Out of my own mind, with the sole acknowledgement of a debt to Aristotle, the only philosopher who ever influenced me. I devised the rest of my philosophy myself."[118] However, she also found early inspiration in Friedrich Nietzsche,[119] and scholars have found indications of his influence in early notes from Rand's journals,[120] in passages from the first edition of We the Living (which Rand later revised),[121] and in her overall writing style.[122] However, by the time she wrote The Fountainhead, Rand had turned against Nietzsche's ideas,[123] and the extent of his influence on her even during her early years is disputed.[124] Among the philosophers Rand held in particular disdain was Immanuel Kant, whom she referred to as a "monster,"[125] although philosophers George Walsh[126] and Fred Seddon[127] have argued that she misinterpreted Kant and exaggerated their differences.Rand said her most important contributions to philosophy were her "theory of concepts, [her] ethics, and [her] discovery in politics that evil—the violation of rights—consists of the initiation of force."[128] She believed epistemology was a foundational branch of philosophy and considered the advocacy of reason to be the single most significant aspect of her philosophy,[129] stating, "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."[130]Reception and legacySee also: List of people influenced by Ayn RandReviewsDuring Rand's lifetime, her work evoked both extreme praise and condemnation. Rand's first novel, We the Living, was admired by the literary critic H. L. Mencken,[131] her Broadway play Night of January 16th was both a critical and popular success,[132] and The Fountainhead was hailed by a reviewer in The New York Times as "masterful".[133]Rand's novels were derided by some critics when they were first published as being long and melodramatic.[5] However, they became bestsellers largely through word of mouth.[134]The first reviews Rand received were for Night of January 16th. Reviews of the production were largely positive, but Rand considered even positive reviews to be embarrassing because of significant changes made to her script by the producer.[132] Rand believed that her first novel, We the Living, was not widely reviewed, but Rand scholar Michael S. Berliner says "it was the most reviewed of any of her works", with approximately 125 different reviews being published in more than 200 publications. Overall these reviews were more positive than the reviews she received for her later work.[135] Her 1938 novella Anthem received little attention from reviewers, both for its first publication in England and for subsequent re-issues.[136]Rand's first bestseller, The Fountainhead, received far fewer reviews than We the Living, and reviewers' opinions were mixed.[137] There was a positive review in The New York Times that Rand greatly appreciated.[138] The reviewer called Rand "a writer of great power" who wrote "brilliantly, beautifully and bitterly", and stated that "you will not be able to read this masterful book without thinking through some of the basic concepts of our time".[133] There were other positive reviews, but Rand dismissed most of them as either not understanding her message or as being from unimportant publications.[137] Some negative reviews focused on the length of the novel,[5] such as one that called it "a whale of a book" and another that said "anyone who is taken in by it deserves a stern lecture on paper-rationing". Other negative reviews called the characters unsympathetic and Rand's style "offensively pedestrian".[137]Rand's 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged was widely reviewed, and many of the reviews were strongly negative.[5][139] In the National Review, conservative author Whittaker Chamberscalled the book "sophomoric" and "remarkably silly". He described the tone of the book as "shrillness without reprieve" and accused Rand of supporting a godless system (which he related to that of the Soviets), claiming "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber—go!'"[140] Atlas Shrugged received positive reviews from a few publications, including praise from the noted book reviewer John Chamberlain,[139] but Rand scholar Mimi ReiselGladstein later wrote that "reviewers seemed to vie with each other in a contest to devise the cleverest put-downs", calling it "execrable claptrap" and "a nightmare"; they said it was "written out of hate" and showed "remorseless hectoring and prolixity".[5] Author Flannery O'Connor wrote in a letter to a friend that "The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail."[141]Rand's nonfiction received far fewer reviews than her novels had. The tenor of the criticism for her first nonfiction book, For the New Intellectual, was similar to that for Atlas Shrugged,[142][143] with philosopher Sidney Hook likening her certainty to "the way philosophy is written in the Soviet Union",[144] and author Gore Vidal calling her viewpoint "nearly perfect in its immorality".[145] Her subsequent books got progressively less attention from reviewers.[142]On the 100th anniversary of Rand's birth in 2005, Edward Rothstein, writing for The New York Times, referred to her fictional writing as quaint utopian "retro fantasy" and programmatic neo-Romanticism of the misunderstood artist, while criticizing her characters' "isolated rejection of democratic society".[146] In 2007, book critic Leslie Clark described her fiction as "romance novels with a patina of pseudo-philosophy".[147] In 2009, GQ's critic columnist Tom Carson described her books as "capitalism's version of middlebrow religious novels" such as Ben-Hur and the Left Behind series.[148]Popular interestA quote from Rand's book The Fountainhead, on the wall directly across from the entrance to The American Adventure rotunda at Walt Disney World'sEpcotIn 1991, a survey conducted for the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club asked club members what the most influential book in the respondent's life was. Rand's Atlas Shrugged was the second most popular choice, after the Bible.[149] Rand's books continue to be widely sold and read, with over 29 million copies sold as of 2013 (with about 10% of that total purchased for free distribution to schools by the Ayn Rand Institute).[150] Although Rand's influence has been greatest in the United States, there has been international interest in her work.[151] Rand's work continues to be among the top sellers among books in India.[152]Rand's contemporary admirers included fellow novelists, such as Ira Levin, Kay Nolte Smith and L. Neil Smith, and later writers such asErikaHolzer and Terry Goodkind have been influenced by her.[153] Other artists who have cited Rand as an important influence on their lives and thought include comic book artist Steve Ditko[154] and musician Neil Peart of Rush.[155] Rand provided a positive view of business, and in response business executives and entrepreneurs have admired and promoted her work.[156] John Allison of BB&T andEd Snider of Comcast Spectacor have funded the promotion of Rand's ideas,[157] while Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, andJohn P. Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, among others, have said they consider Rand crucial to their success.[158]Rand and her works have been referred to in a variety of media: on television shows including animated sitcoms, live-action comedies, dramas, and game shows,[159] as well as in movies and video games.[160] She, or characters based on her, figure prominently (in positive and negative lights) in literary and science fiction novels by prominent American authors.[161] Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of Reason, has remarked that "Rand's is a tortured immortality, one in which she's as likely to be a punch line as a protagonist..." and that "jibes at Rand as cold and inhuman, run through the popular culture".[162] Two movies have been made about Rand's life. A 1997 documentary film, Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, was nominated for the Academy Award for Documentary Feature.[163] The Passion of Ayn Rand, a 1999 television adaptation of the book of the same name, won several awards.[164] Rand's image also appears on a U.S. postage stamp designed by artist Nick Gaetano.[165]Political influenceA protester at an April 2009 Tea Party rally carries a sign referring to John Galt, the hero of Rand's novel Atlas ShruggedSee also: Libertarianism and ObjectivismAlthough she rejected the labels "conservative" and "libertarian,"[166] Rand has had continuing influence on right-wing politics and libertarianism.[7] Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, considers Rand one of the three most important women (along withRose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson) of modern American libertarianism,[167] and David Nolan, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party, stated that "without Ayn Rand, the libertarian movement would not exist".[168] In his history of the libertarian movement, journalistBrian Doherty described her as "the most influential libertarian of the twentieth century to the public at large",[149] and biographer Jennifer Burns referred to her as "the ultimate gateway drug to life on the right".[169]She faced intense opposition from William F. Buckley, Jr. and other contributors for the National Review magazine. They published numerous criticisms in the 1950s and 1960s by Whittaker Chambers, Garry Wills, and M. Stanton Evans. Nevertheless, her influence among conservatives forced Buckley and other National Review contributors to reconsider how traditional notions of virtue and Christianity could be integrated with support for capitalism.[170]The political figures who cite Rand as an influence are usually conservatives (often members of the United States Republican Party),[171]despite Rand taking some positions that are atypical for conservatives, such as being pro-choice and an atheist.[172] A 1987 article inThe New York Times referred to her as the Reagan administration's "novelist laureate".[173] Republican Congressmen and conservative pundits have acknowledged her influence on their lives and recommended her novels.[174]The late-2000s financial crisis spurred renewed interest in her works, especially Atlas Shrugged, which some saw as foreshadowing the crisis,[175] and opinion articles compared real-world events with the plot of the novel.[176] During this time, signs mentioning Rand and her fictional hero John Galt appeared at Tea Party protests.[177] There was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left, with critics blaming the economic crisis on her support of selfishness and free markets, particularly through her influence on Alan Greenspan.[178] For example, Mother Jones remarked that "Rand's particular genius has always been her ability to turn upside down traditional hierarchies and recast the wealthy, the talented, and the powerful as the oppressed",[172] while The Nation alleged similarities between the "moral syntax of Randianism" and fascism.[179]Academic reactionDuring Rand's lifetime her work received little attention from academic scholars.[6] When the first academic book about Rand's philosophy appeared in 1971, its author declared writing about Rand "a treacherous undertaking" that could lead to "guilt by association" for taking her seriously.[180] A few articles about Rand's ideas appeared in academic journals before her death in 1982, many of them in The Personalist.[181] One of these was "On the Randian Argument" by libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, who argued that hermeta-ethical argument is unsound and fails to solve the is–ought problem posed by David Hume.[182] Some responses to Nozick by other academic philosophers were also published in The Personalist arguing that Nozick misstated Rand's case.[181] Academic consideration of Rand as a literary figure during her life was even more limited. Academic Mimi Gladstein was unable to find any scholarly articles about Rand's novels when she began researching her in 1973, and only three such articles appeared during the rest of the 1970s.[183]Since Rand's death, interest in her work has gradually increased.[184] Historian Jennifer Burns has identified "three overlapping waves" of scholarly interest in Rand, the most recent of which is "an explosion of scholarship" since the year 2000.[185] However, few universities currently include Rand or Objectivism as a philosophical specialty or research area, with many literature and philosophy departments dismissing her as a pop culture phenomenon rather than a subject for serious study.[186]Gladstein, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Allan Gotthelf, Edwin A. Locke and Tara Smith have taught her work in academic institutions. Sciabarra co-edits the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, a nonpartisan peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the study of Rand's philosophical and literary work.[187] In 1987 Gotthelf helped found the Ayn Rand Society with George Walsh and David Kelley, and has been active in sponsoring seminars about Rand and her ideas.[188] Smith has written several academic books and papers on Rand's ideas, including Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, a volume on Rand's ethical theory published by Cambridge University Press. Rand's ideas have also been made subjects of study at Clemson and Duke universities.[189] Scholars of English and American literature have largely ignored her work,[190] although attention to her literary work has increased since the 1990s.[191]Rand scholars Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen, while stressing the importance and originality of her thought, describe her style as "literary, hyperbolic and emotional".[192] Philosopher Jack Wheeler says that despite "the incessant bombast and continuous venting of Randian rage", Rand's ethics are "a most immense achievement, the study of which is vastly more fruitful than any other in contemporary thought."[193] In the Literary Encyclopedia entry for Rand written in 2001, John David Lewis declared that "Rand wrote the most intellectually challenging fiction of her generation".[194] In a 1999 interview in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Sciabarra commented, "I know they laugh at Rand", while forecasting a growth of interest in her work in the academic community.[195]Libertarian philosopher Michael Huemer has argued that very few people find Rand's ideas convincing, especially her ethics,[196] which he believes is difficult to interpret and may lack logical coherence.[197] He attributes the attention she receives to her being a "compelling writer", especially as a novelist. Thus, Atlas Shrugged outsells not only the works of other philosophers of classical liberalism such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, or Frederic Bastiat, but also Rand's own non-fiction works.[196]Political scientist Charles Murray, while praising Rand's literary accomplishments, criticizes her claim that her only "philosophical debt" was to Aristotle, instead asserting that her ideas were derivative of previous thinkers such as John Locke and Friedrich Nietzsche. According to Murray, "By insisting that Objectivism had sprung full blown from her own mind, with just a little help from Aristotle, Rand was being childish, as well as out of touch with reality."[198]Although Rand maintained that Objectivism was an integrated philosophical system, philosopher Robert H. Bass has argued that her central ethical ideas are inconsistent and contradictory to her central political ideas.[199]Objectivist movementMain article: Objectivist movementIn 1985, Rand's heir Leonard Peikoff established the Ayn Rand Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas and works. In 1990, philosopher David Kelleyfounded the Institute for Objectivist Studies, now known as The Atlas Society.[200] In 2001 historian John McCaskey organized the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship, which provides grants for scholarly work on Objectivism in academia.[201] The charitable foundation of BB&T Corporation has also given grants for teaching Rand's ideas or works. The University of Texas at Austin, the University of Pittsburgh, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are among the schools that have received grants. In some cases these grants have been controversial due to their requiring research or teaching related to Rand.[202]Selected worksMain article: Bibliography of Ayn Rand and ObjectivismNovels1936 We the Living1943 The Fountainhead1957 Atlas ShruggedOther fiction1934 Night of January 16th1938 AnthemNon-fiction1961 For the New Intellectual1964 The Virtue of Selfishness1966 Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal1969 The Romantic Manifesto1971 The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution1979 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology1982 Philosophy: Who Needs It
Adam SmithFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFor other people named Adam Smith, see Adam Smith (disambiguation).Adam SmithBorn5 June 1723 OSKirkcaldy, Fife, ScotlandDied17 July 1790 (aged 67)Edinburgh, ScotlandNationalityScottishRegionWesternphilosophySchoolClassicaleconomicsMain interestsPolitical philosophy, ethics,economicsNotable ideasClassical economics,modern free market,division of labour,the "invisible hand"Influenced by[show]Influenced[show]SignatureAdam Smith (5 June 1723 OS (16 June 1723 NS) – 17 July 1790) was a Scottish moral philosopher and a pioneer of political economy. One of the key figures of the Scottish Enlightenment,[1] Adam Smith is best known for two classic works: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, usually abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. Smith is cited as the "father of modern economics" and is still among the most influential thinkers in the field of economics today.[2]Smith studied social philosophy at the University of Glasgow and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was one of the first students to benefit from scholarships set up by his fellow Glaswegian John Snell. After graduating, he delivered a successful series of public lectures at the University of Edinburgh, leading him to collaborate with David Hume during the Scottish Enlightenment. Smith obtained a professorship at Glasgow teaching moral philosophy, and during this time he wrote and published The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In his later life, he took a tutoring position that allowed him to travel throughout Europe, where he met other intellectual leaders of his day. Smith then returned home and spent the next ten years writing The Wealth of Nations, publishing it in 1776. He died in 1790 at the age of 67.Contents [hide] 1 Biography1.1 Early life1.2 Formal education1.3 Teaching career1.4 Tutoring and travels1.5 Later years2 Personality and beliefs2.1 Character2.2 Religious views3 Published works3.1 The Theory of Moral Sentiments3.2 The Wealth of Nations3.3 Criticism and dissent3.4 Other works4 Legacy4.1 In economics and moral philosophy4.2 Portraits, monuments, and banknotes4.3 Residence4.4 As a symbol of free market economics5 See also6 Footnotes7 Notes8 References9 Further reading10 External linksBiography[edit]Early life[edit]Portrait of Smith's mother, Margaret DouglasSmith was born in Kirkcaldy, Fife, Scotland. His father, also named Adam Smith, was a lawyer, civil servant, and widower who married Margaret Douglas in 1720 and died two months after Smith was born.[3] Although the date of Smith's birth is unknown, his baptism was recorded on 5 June 1723 at Kirkcaldy.[4] Though few events in Smith's early childhood are known, Scottish journalist and Smith's biographer John Rae recorded that Smith was abducted by gypsies at the age of four and released when others went to rescue him.[N 1] Smith was close to his mother, who likely encouraged him to pursue his scholarly ambitions.[6] He attended the Burgh School of Kirkcaldy – characterised by Rae as "one of the best secondary schools of Scotland at that period" – from 1729 to 1737.[5] While there, Smith studied Latin, mathematics, history, and writing.[6]Formal education[edit]A commemorative plaque for Smith is located in Smith's home town of Kirkcaldy.Smith entered the University of Glasgow when he was fourteen and studied moral philosophy under Francis Hutcheson.[6] Here, Smith developed his passion for liberty, reason, and free speech. In 1740 Smith was awarded the Snell exhibition and left to attend Balliol College, Oxford.[7]Smith considered the teaching at Glasgow far superior to that at Oxford, which he found intellectually stifling.[8] In Book V, Chapter II of The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote: "In the University of Oxford, the greater part of the public professors have, for these many years, given up altogether even the pretence of teaching." Smith is also reported to have complained to friends that Oxford officials once discovered him reading a copy of David Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, and they subsequently confiscated his book and punished him severely for reading it.[5][9][10] According to William Robert Scott, "The Oxford of [Smith's] time gave little if any help towards what was to be his lifework."[11] Nevertheless, Smith took the opportunity while at Oxford to teach himself several subjects by reading many books from the shelves of the large Oxford library.[12] When Smith was not studying on his own, his time at Oxford was not a happy one, according to his letters.[13] Near the end of his time at Oxford, Smith began suffering from shaking fits, probably the symptoms of a nervous breakdown.[14] He left Oxford University in 1746, before his scholarship ended.[14][15]In Book V of The Wealth of Nations, Smith comments on the low quality of instruction and the meager intellectual activity at English universities, when compared to their Scottish counterparts. He attributes this both to the rich endowments of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, which made the income of professors independent of their ability to attract students, and to the fact that distinguished men of letters could make an even more comfortable living as ministers of the Church of England.[10]Smith's discontent at Oxford might be in part due to the absence of his beloved teacher in Glasgow, Francis Hutcheson. Hutcheson was well regarded as one of the most prominent lecturers at the University of Glasgow in his day and earned the approbation of students, colleagues, and even ordinary residents with the fervor and earnestness of his orations (which he sometimes opened to the public). His lectures endeavored not merely to teach philosophy but to make his students embody that philosophy in their lives, appropriately acquiring the epithet, the preacher of philosophy. Unlike Smith, Hutcheson was not a system builder; rather it was his magnetic personality and method of lecturing that so influenced his students and caused the greatest of those to reverentially refer to him as "the never to be forgotten Hutcheson" – a title that Smith in all his correspondence used to describe only two people, his good friend David Hume and influential mentor Francis Hutcheson.[16]Teaching career[edit]Smith began delivering public lectures in 1748 in University of Edinburgh, sponsored by the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh under the patronage of Lord Kames.[17] His lecture topics included rhetoric and belles-lettres,[18] and later the subject of "the progress of opulence". On this latter topic he first expounded his economic philosophy of "the obvious and simple system of natural liberty". While Smith was not adept at public speaking, his lectures met with success.[19]David Hume was a friend and contemporary of Smith.In 1750, he met the philosopher David Hume, who was his senior by more than a decade. In their writings covering history, politics, philosophy, economics, and religion, Smith and Hume shared closer intellectual and personal bonds than with other important figures of the Scottish Enlightenment.[20]In 1751, Smith earned a professorship at Glasgow University teaching logic courses, and in 1752 Smith was elected a member of the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh, having been introduced to the society by Lord Kames. When the head of Moral Philosophy died the next year, Smith took over the position.[19] He worked as an academic for the next thirteen years, which he characterized as "by far the most useful and therefore by far the happiest and most honorable period [of his life]".[21]Smith published The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759, embodying some of his Glasgow lectures. This work was concerned with how human morality depends on sympathy between agent and spectator, or the individual and other members of society. Smith defined "mutual sympathy" as the basis of moral sentiments. He based his explanation, not on a special "moral sense" as the Third Lord Shaftesbury and Hutcheson had done, nor on utility as Hume did, but on mutual sympathy, a term best captured in modern parlance by the twentieth-century concept of empathy, the capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another being.Following the publication of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith became so popular that many wealthy students left their schools in other countries to enroll at Glasgow to learn under Smith.[22] After the publication of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith began to give more attention to jurisprudence and economics in his lectures and less to his theories of morals.[23] For example, Smith lectured that the cause of increase in national wealth is labor, rather than the nation's quantity of gold or silver, which is the basis for mercantilism, the economic theory that dominated Western European economic policies at the time.[22]François Quesnay, one of the leaders of the Physiocratic school of thoughtIn 1762, the University of Glasgow conferred on Smith the title of Doctor of Laws (LL.D.). At the end of 1763, he obtained an offer from Charles Townshend – who had been introduced to Smith by David Hume – to tutor his stepson, Henry Scott, the young Duke of Buccleuch. Smith then resigned from his professorship to take the tutoring position, and he subsequently attempted to return the fees he had collected from his students because he resigned in the middle of the term, but his students refused.[24]Tutoring and travels[edit]Smith's tutoring job entailed touring Europe with Scott, during which time he educated Scott on a variety of subjects – such as proper Polish.[24]He was paid £300 per year (plus expenses) along with a £300 per year pension; roughly twice his former income as a teacher.[24] Smith first travelled as a tutor to Toulouse, France, where he stayed for one and a half years.[24] According to his own account, he found Toulouse to be somewhat boring, having written to Hume that he "had begun to write a book to pass away the time".[24] After touring the south of France, the group moved to Geneva, where Smith met with the philosopher Voltaire.[25]From Geneva, the party moved to Paris. Here Smith came to know several great intellectual leaders of the time; invariably having an effect on his future works. This list included: Benjamin Franklin,[26] Turgot, Jean D'Alembert, André Morellet, Helvétius, and, notably, François Quesnay, the head of the Physiocratic school.[27] So impressed with his ideas[28] Smith considered dedicating The Wealth of Nations to him – had Quesnay not died beforehand.[29] Physiocrats were opposed to mercantilism, the dominating economic theory of the time. Illustrated in their motto Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de luimême! (Let do and let pass, the world goes on by itself!). They were also known to have declared that only agricultural activity produced real wealth; merchants and industrialists (manufacturers) did not.[26] This however, did not represent their true school of thought, but was a mere "smoke screen" manufactured to hide their actual criticisms of the nobility and church; arguing that they made up the only real clients of merchants and manufacturers.[30] The wealth of France was virtually destroyed by Louis XIV and Louis XV to ruinous wars,[31] by aiding the American insurgents against the British, and perhaps most destructive (in terms of public perceptions) was what was seen as the excessive consumption of goods and services deemed to have no economic contribution – unproductive labour. Assuming that nobility and church are essentially detractors from economic growth, the feudal system of agriculture in France was the only sector important to maintain the wealth of the nation. Given that the English economy of the day yielded an income distribution that stood in contrast to that which existed in France, Smith concluded that the teachings and beliefs of Physiocrats were, "with all [their] imperfections [perhaps], the nearest approximation to the truth that has yet been published upon the subject of political economy".[32]The distinction between productive versus unproductive labour – the physiocratic classesteril – was a predominant issue in the development and understanding of what would become classical economic theory.Later years[edit]In 1766, Henry Scott's younger brother died in Paris, and Smith's tour as a tutor ended shortly thereafter.[26] Smith returned home that year to Kirkcaldy, and he devoted much of the next ten years to his magnum opus.[33] There he befriended Henry Moyes, a young blind man who showed precocious aptitude. As well as teaching Moyes, Smith secured the patronage of David Hume and Thomas Reid in the young man's education.[34] In May 1773, Smith was elected fellow of the Royal Society of London,[35] and was elected a member of the Literary Club in 1775.[36] The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776 and was an instant success, selling out its first edition in only six months.[37]In 1778, Smith was appointed to a post as commissioner of customs in Scotland and went to live with his mother in Panmure House in Edinburgh's Canongate.[38] Five years later, as a member of the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh when it received its royal charter, he automatically became one of the founding members of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,[39] and from 1787 to 1789 he occupied the honorary position of Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow.[40] He died in the northern wing of Panmure House in Edinburgh on 17 July 1790 after a painful illness and was buried in the CanongateKirkyard.[41] On his death bed, Smith expressed disappointment that he had not achieved more.[42]Smith's literary executors were two friends from the Scottish academic world: the physicist and chemist Joseph Black, and the pioneering geologist James Hutton.[43] Smith left behind many notes and some unpublished material, but gave instructions to destroy anything that was not fit for publication.[44] He mentioned an early unpublished History of Astronomy as probably suitable, and it duly appeared in 1795, along with other material such as Essays on Philosophical Subjects.[43]Smith's library went by his will to David Douglas, Lord Reston (son of his cousin Colonel Robert Douglas of Strathendry, Fife), who lived with Smith. It was eventually divided between his two surviving children, Cecilia Margaret (Mrs. Cunningham) and David Anne (Mrs. Bannerman). On the death of her husband, the Rev. W. B. Cunningham of Prestonpans in 1878, Mrs. Cunningham sold some of the books. The remainder passed to her son, Professor Robert Oliver Cunningham of Queen's College, Belfast, who presented a part to the library of Queen's College. After his death the remaining books were sold. On the death of Mrs. Bannerman in 1879 her portion of the library went intact to the New College (of the Free Church), Edinburgh.Personality and beliefs[edit]Character[edit]James Tassie's enamel paste medallion of Smith provided the model for many engravings and portraits that remain today.[45]Not much is known about Smith's personal views beyond what can be deduced from his published articles. His personal papers were destroyed after his death at his request.[44] He never married,[46] and seems to have maintained a close relationship with his mother, with whom he lived after his return from France and who died six years before his own death.[47]Smith was described by several of his contemporaries and biographers as comically absent-minded, with peculiar habits of speech and gait, and a smile of "inexpressible benignity".[48] He was known to talk to himself,[42] a habit that began during his childhood when he would smile in rapt conversation with invisible companions.[49] He also had occasional spells of imaginary illness,[42] and he is reported to have had books and papers placed in tall stacks in his study.[49] According to one story, Smith took Charles Townshend on a tour of a tanning factory, and while discussing free trade, Smith walked into a huge tanning pit from which he needed help to escape.[50] He is also said to have put bread and butter into a teapot, drunk the concoction, and declared it to be the worst cup of tea he ever had. According to another account, Smith distractedly went out walking in his nightgown and ended up 15 miles (24 km) outside of town, before nearby church bells brought him back to reality.[49][50]James Boswell who was a student of Smith's at Glasgow University, and later knew him at the Literary Club, says that Smith thought that speaking about his ideas in conversation might reduce the sale of his books, and so his conversation was unimpressive. According to Boswell, he once told Sir Joshua Reynolds that 'he made it a rule when in company never to talk of what he understood'.[51]Portrait of Smith by John Kay, 1790Smith, who is reported to have been an odd-looking fellow, has been described as someone who "had a large nose, bulging eyes, a protruding lower lip, a nervous twitch, and a speech impediment".[10] Smith is said to have acknowledged his looks at one point, saying, "I am a beau in nothing but my books."[10] Smith rarely sat for portraits,[52] so almost all depictions of him created during his lifetime were drawn from memory. The best-known portraits of Smith are the profile by James Tassie and two etchings by John Kay.[53] The line engravings produced for the covers of 19th century reprints of The Wealth of Nations were based largely on Tassie's medallion.[54]Religious views[edit]There has been considerable scholarly debate about the nature of Smith's religious views. Smith's father had shown a strong interest inChristianity and belonged to the moderate wing of the Church of Scotland.[55] The fact that Adam Smith received the Snell Exhibition suggests that he may have gone to Oxford with the intention of pursuing a career in the Church of England.[56]Anglo-American economist Ronald Coase has challenged the view that Smith was a deist, based on the fact that Smith's writings never explicitly invoke God as an explanation of the harmonies of the natural or the human worlds.[57] According to Coase, though Smith does sometimes refer to the "Great Architect of the Universe", later scholars such as Jacob Viner have "very much exaggerated the extent to which Adam Smith was committed to a belief in a personal God",[58] a belief for which Coase finds little evidence in passages such as the one in the Wealth of Nations in which Smith writes that the curiosity of mankind about the "great phenomena of nature", such as "the generation, the life, growth and dissolution of plants and animals", has led men to "enquire into their causes", and that "superstition first attempted to satisfy this curiosity, by referring all those wonderful appearances to the immediate agency of the gods. Philosophy afterwards endeavoured to account for them, from more familiar causes, or from such as mankind were better acquainted with than the agency of the gods".[58]Smith was also a close friend and later the executor of David Hume, who was commonly characterized in his own time as an atheist.[59] The publication in 1777 of Smith's letter toWilliamStrahan, in which he described Hume's courage in the face of death in spite his irreligiosity, attracted considerable controversy.[60]Published works[edit]The Theory of Moral Sentiments[edit]Main article: The Theory of Moral SentimentsIn 1759, Smith published his first work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. He continued making extensive revisions to the book, up until his death.[N 2] Although The Wealth of Nations is widely regarded as Smith's most influential work, it is believed that Smith himself considered The Theory of Moral Sentiments to be a superior work.[62]In the work, Smith critically examines the moral thinking of his time, and suggests that conscience arises from social relationships.[63] His goal in writing the work was to explain the source of mankind's ability to form moral judgements, in spite of man's natural inclinations towards self-interest. Smith proposes a theory of sympathy, in which the act of observing others makes people aware of themselves and the morality of their own behavior.[64]Scholars have traditionally perceived a conflict between The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations; the former emphasizes sympathy for others, while the latter focuses on the role of self-interest.[65] In recent years, however, some scholars[66][67][68] of Smith's work have argued that no contradiction exists.[69] They claim that in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith develops a theory of psychology in which individuals seek the approval of the "impartial spectator" as a result of a natural desire to have outside observers sympathize with them. Rather than viewing The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments as presenting incompatible views of human nature, some Smith scholars regard the works as emphasizing different aspects of human nature that vary depending on the situation.These views ignore that Smith's visit to France (1764–66) changed radically his former views and that The Wealth of Nations is an inhomogeneous convolute of his former lectures and of what Quesnay taught him.[70] Before his voyage to France in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith refers to an "invisible hand" ("By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, [an individual] intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.") [71] which ensures that the gluttony of the rich helps the poor, as the stomachs of rich are so limited that they have to spend their fortune on servants. After his visit to France, Smith considers in the Wealth of Nations (1776) the gluttony of the rich as unproductive labour. The micro-economical/psychological view in the tradition of Aristotle, Puffendorf and Hutcheson,[72] Smith's teacher – elements compatible with a neoclassical theory – changed to the macroeconomic view of the classical theory Smith learned in France.[clarification needed]The Wealth of Nations[edit]Main article: The Wealth of NationsLater building on the site where Smith wrote The Wealth of NationsThere is a fundamental disagreement between classical and neoclassical economists about the central message of Smith's most influential work: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Neoclassical economists emphasise Smith's invisible hand,[73] a concept mentioned in the middle of his work – Book IV, Chapter II – and classical economists believe that Smith stated his programme for promoting the "wealth of nations" in the first sentences.Smith used the term "the invisible hand" in "History of Astronomy"[74] referring to "the invisible hand of Jupiter" and twice – each time with a different meaning – the term "an invisible hand": in The Theory of Moral Sentiments[75] (1759) and in The Wealth of Nations[76](1776). This last statement about "an invisible hand" has been interpreted as "the invisible hand" in numerous ways. It is therefore important to read the original:As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.Those who regard that statement as Smith's central message also quote frequently Smith's dictum:[77]It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.The first page of The Wealth of Nations, 1776 London editionSmith's statement about the benefits of "an invisible hand" is certainly meant to answer[citation needed] Mandeville's contention that "Private Vices ... may be turned into Public Benefits".[78] It shows Smith's belief that when an individual pursues his self-interest, he indirectly promotes the good of society. Self-interested competition in the free market, he argued, would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and warned of their "conspiracy against the public or in some other contrivance to raise prices".[79] Again and again, Smith warned of the collusive nature of business interests, which may form cabals or monopolies, fixing the highest price "which can be squeezed out of the buyers".[80] Smith also warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants "...in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public...The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention."[81]The neoclassical interest in Smith's statement about "an invisible hand" originates in the possibility to see it as a precursor of neoclassical economics and its General Equilibrium concept. Samuelson's "Economics" refers 6 times to Smith's "invisible hand". To emphasize this relation, Samuelson[82] quotes Smith's "invisible hand" statement putting "general interest" where Smith wrote "public interest". Samuelson[83] concluded: "Smith was unable to prove the essence of his invisible-hand doctrine. Indeed, until the 1940s no one knew how to prove, even to state properly, the kernel of truth in this proposition about perfectly competitive market."Very differently, classical economists see in Smith's first sentences his programme to promote "The Wealth of Nations". Taking up the physiocratical concept of the economy as a circular process means that to have growth the inputs of period2 must excel the inputs of period1. Therefore the outputs of period1 not used or usable as input of period2 are regarded as unproductive labour as they do not contribute to growth. This is what Smith had learned in France with Quesnay. To this French insight that unproductive labour should be pushed back to use more labour productively, Smith added his own proposal, that productive labour should be made even more productive by deepening the division of labour. Deepening the division of labour means under competition lower prices and thereby extended markets. Extended markets and increased production lead to a new step of reorganising production and inventing new ways of producing which again lower prices, etc., etc.. Smith's central message is therefore that under dynamic competition a growth machine secures "The Wealth of Nations". It predicted England's evolution as the workshop of the World, underselling all its competitors. The opening sentences of the "Wealth of Nations" summarize this policy:The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes ... . [T]his produce ... bears a greater or smaller proportion to the number of those who are to consume it ... .[B]ut this proportion must in every nation be regulated by two different circumstances;first, by the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which its labour is generally applied; and,secondly, by the proportion between the number of those who are employed in useful labour, and that of those who are not so employed [emphasis added].[84]Criticism and dissent[edit]Alfred Marshall criticized Smith's definition of economy on several points. He argued that man should be equally important as money, services are as important as goods, and that there must be an emphasis on human welfare, instead of just wealth.Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz says, on the topic of one of Smith's better known ideas: "the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there."[85]Other works[edit]Smith's burial place inCanongateKirkyardShortly before his death, Smith had nearly all his manuscripts destroyed. In his last years, he seemed to have been planning two major treatises, one on the theory and history of law and one on the sciences and arts. The posthumously published Essays on Philosophical Subjects, a history of astronomy down to Smith's own era, plus some thoughts on ancient physics and metaphysics, probably contain parts of what would have been the latter treatise. Lectures on Jurisprudence were notes taken from Smith's early lectures, plus an early draft of The Wealth of Nations, published as part of the 1976 Glasgow Edition of the works and correspondence of Smith. Other works, including some published posthumously, include Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue, and Arms (1763) (first published in 1896); and Essays on Philosophical Subjects (1795).[86]Legacy[edit]In economics and moral philosophy[edit]The Wealth of Nations was a precursor to the modern academic discipline of economics. In this and other works, Smith expounded how rational self-interest and competition can lead to economic prosperity. Smith was controversial in his own day and his general approach and writing style were often satirized by Tory writers in the moralizing tradition of Hogarth and Swift, as a discussion at the University of Winchester suggests.[87]In 2005, The Wealth of Nations was named among the 100 Best Scottish Books of all time.[88] Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, it is said, used to carry a copy of the book in her handbag.[89]In light of the arguments put forward by Smith and other economic theorists in Britain, academic belief in mercantalism began to decline in England in the late 18th century. During the Industrial Revolution, Britain embraced free trade and Smith's laissez-faire economics, and via the British Empire, used its power to spread a broadly liberal economic model around the world, characterized by open markets, and relatively barrier free domestic and international trade.[90]George Stigler attributes to Smith "the most important substantive proposition in all of economics". It is that, under competition, owners of resources (for example labor, land, and capital) will use them most profitably, resulting in an equal rate of return in equilibrium for all uses, adjusted for apparent differences arising from such factors as training, trust, hardship, and unemployment.[91]Paul Samuelson finds in Smith's pluralist use of supply and demand as applied to wages, rents, profit a valid and valuable anticipation of the general equilibrium modeling of Walrasa century later. Smith's allowance for wage increases in the short and intermediate term from capital accumulation and invention added a realism missed later by Malthus, Ricardo, and Marx in their propounding a rigid subsistence–wage theory of labour supply.[92]On the other hand, Joseph Schumpeter dismissed Smith's contributions as unoriginal, saying "His very limitation made for success. Had he been more brilliant, he would not have been taken so seriously. Had he dug more deeply, had he unearthed more recondite truth, had he used more difficult and ingenious methods, he would not have been understood. But he had no such ambitions; in fact he disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along."[93]Classical economists presented competing theories of those of Smith, termed the "labour theory of value". Later Marxian economics descending from classical economics also use Smith's labour theories, in part. The first volume of Karl Marx's major work, Capital, was published in German in 1867. In it, Marx focused on the labour theory of value and what he considered to be the exploitation of labour by capital.[94][95] The labour theory of value held that the value of a thing was determined by the labor that went into its production. This contrasts with the modern contention of neoclassical economics, that the value of a thing is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain the thing.The Adam Smith Theatre in KirkcaldyThe body of theory later termed "neoclassical economics" or "marginalism" formed from about 1870 to 1910. The term "economics" was popularized by such neoclassical economists as Alfred Marshall as a concise synonym for "economic science" and a substitute for the earlier, broader term "political economy" used by Smith.[96][97] This corresponded to the influence on the subject of mathematical methods used in the natural sciences.[98] Neoclassical economics systematized supply and demand as joint determinants of price and quantity in market equilibrium, affecting both the allocation of output and the distribution of income. It dispensed with the labour theory of value of which Smith was most famously identified with in classical economics, in favour of a marginal utility theory of value on the demand side and a more general theory of costs on the supply side.[99]The bicentennial anniversary of the publication of The Wealth of Nations was celebrated in 1976, resulting in increased interest for The Theory of Moral Sentiments and his other works throughout academia. After 1976, Smith was more likely to be represented as the author of both The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and thereby as the founder of a moral philosophy and the science of economics. His homo economicus or "economic man" was also more often represented as a moral person. Additionally, economists David Levy and Sandra Peart in "The Secret History of the Dismal Science" point to his opposition to hierarchy and beliefs in inequality, including racial inequality, and provide additional support for those who point to Smith's opposition to slavery, colonialism, and empire.[100] They show the caricatures of Smith drawn by the opponents of views on hierarchy and inequality in this online article. Emphasized also are Smith's statements of the need for high wages for the poor, and the efforts to keep wages low. In The “Vanity of the Philosopher”: From Equality to Hierarchy in Postclassical Economics Peart and Levy also cite Smith's view that a common street porter was not intellectually inferior to a philosopher,[101] and point to the need for greater appreciation of the public views in discussions of science and other subjects now considered to be technical. They also cite Smith's opposition to the often expressed view that science is superior to common sense.[102]Smith also explained the relationship between growth of private property and civil government:"Men may live together in society with some tolerable degree of security, though there is no civil magistrate to protect them from the injustice of those passions. But avarice and ambition in the rich, in the poor the hatred of labour and the love of present ease and enjoyment, are the passions which prompt to invade property, passions much more steady in their operation, and much more universal in their influence. Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days' labour, civil government is not so necessary. Civil government supposes a certain subordination. But as the necessity of civil government gradually grows up with the acquisition of valuable property, so the principal causes which naturally introduce subordination gradually grow up with the growth of that valuable property. (...) Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs. All the inferior shepherds and herdsmen feel that the security of their own herds and flocks depends upon the security of those of the great shepherd or herdsman; that the maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." (Source: The Wealth of Nations, Book 5, Chapter 1, Part 2)This £20 note was issued by the Bank of Englandfeaturing Smith.Portraits, monuments, and banknotes[edit]A statue of Smith in Edinburgh's High Street, erected through private donations organised by the Adam Smith Institute.Smith has been commemorated in the UK on banknotes printed by two different banks; his portrait has appeared since 1981 on the £50 notes issued by the Clydesdale Bank in Scotland,[103][104]and in March 2007 Smith's image also appeared on the new series of £20 notes issued by theBank of England, making him the first Scotsman to feature on an English banknote.[105]A large-scale memorial of Smith by Alexander Stoddart was unveiled on 4 July 2008 in Edinburgh. It is a 10 feet (3.0 m)-tall bronze sculpture and it stands above the Royal Mile outside St Giles' Cathedral in Parliament Square, near the Mercat cross.[106] 20th-century sculptor Jim Sanborn(best known for the Kryptos sculpture at the United States Central Intelligence Agency) has created multiple pieces which feature Smith's work. At Central Connecticut State University is Circulating Capital, a tall cylinder which features an extract from The Wealth of Nations on the lower half, and on the upper half, some of the same text but represented in binary code.[107] At the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, outside the Belk College of Business Administration, is Adam Smith's Spinning Top.[108][109] Another Smith sculpture is at Cleveland State University.[110] He also appears as the narrator in the 2013 play The Low Road, centred on a proponent on laissez-faire economics in the late eighteenth century but dealing obliquely with the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the recession which followed – in the premiere production, he was portrayed by Bill Paterson.Residence[edit]Adam Smith resided at Panmure house from 1778–90. This residence has now been purchased by the Edinburgh Business School at Heriot Watt University and fundraising has begun to restore it.[111][112] Part of the Northern end of the original building appears to have been demolished in the 19th century to make way for an iron foundry.As a symbol of free market economics[edit]Adam Smith's Spinning Top, sculpture by Jim Sanborn atCleveland State UniversitySmith has been celebrated by advocates of free market policies as the founder of free market economics, a view reflected in the naming of bodies such as the Adam Smith Institute in London, the Adam Smith Society[113] and the Australian Adam Smith Club,[114] and in terms such as the Adam Smith necktie.[115]Alan Greenspan argues that, while Smith did not coin the term laissez-faire, "it was left to Adam Smith to identify the more-general set of principles that brought conceptual clarity to the seeming chaos of market transactions". Greenspan continues that The Wealth of Nations was "one of the great achievements in human intellectual history".[116] P. J. O'Rourke describes Smith as the "founder of free market economics".[117]However, other writers have argued that Smith's support for laissez-faire (which in French means leave alone) has been overstated. Herbert Steinwrote that the people who "wear an Adam Smith necktie" do it to "make a statement of their devotion to the idea of free markets and limited government", and that this misrepresents Smith's ideas. Stein writes that Smith "was not pure or doctrinaire about this idea. He viewed government intervention in the market with great skepticism...yet he was prepared to accept or propose qualifications to that policy in the specific cases where he judged that their net effect would be beneficial and would not undermine the basically free character of the system. He did not wear the Adam Smith necktie." In Stein's reading, The Wealth of Nations could justify the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, mandatory employer health benefits, environmentalism, and "discriminatory taxation to deter improper or luxurious behavior".[118]Similarly, Vivienne Brown stated in The Economic Journal that in the 20th century United States, Reaganomics supporters, the Wall Street Journal, and other similar sources have spread among the general public a partial and misleading vision of Smith, portraying him as an "extreme dogmatic defender of laissez-faire capitalism and supply-side economics".[119] In fact, The Wealth of Nations includes the following statement on the payment of taxes:"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."[120]Some commentators have argued that Smith's works show support for a progressive, not flat, income tax and that he specifically named taxes that he thought should be required by the state, among them luxury goods taxes and tax on rent.[121]Additionally, Smith outlined the proper expenses of the government in The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. I. Included in his requirements of a government is to enforce contracts and provide justice system, grant patents and copy rights, provide public goods such as infrastructure, provide national defense and regulate banking. It was the role of the government to provide goods "of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual" such as roads, bridges, canals, and harbours. He also encouraged invention and new ideas through his patent enforcement and support of infant industry monopolies. he supported public education and religious institutions as providing general benefit to the society. Finally he outlined how the government should support the dignity of the monarch or chief magistrate, such that they are equal or above the public in fashion. He even states that monarchs should be provided for in a greater fashion than magistrates of a republic because "we naturally expect more splendor in the court of a king than in the mansion-house of a doge".[122] In addition, he was in favor of retaliatory tariffs and believed that they would eventually bring down the price of goods. He even stated in Wealth of Nations:"The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods."[123]Economic historians such as Jacob Viner regard Smith as a strong advocate of free markets and limited government (what Smith called "natural liberty") but not as a dogmatic supporter of laissez-faire.[124]Economist Daniel Klein believes using the term "free market economics" or "free market economist" to identify the ideas of Smith is too general and slightly misleading. Klein offers six characteristics central to the identity of Smith's economic thought and argues that a new name is needed to give a more accurate depiction of the "Smithian" identity.[125][126]Economist David Ricardo set straight some of the misunderstandings about Smith's thoughts on free market. Most people still fall victim to the thinking that Smith was a free market economist without exception, though he was not. Ricardo pointed out that Smith was in support of helping infant industries. Smith believed that the government should subsidise newly formed industry, but he did fear that when the infant industry grew into adulthood it would be unwilling to surrender the government help.[127] Smith also supported tariffs on imported goods to counteract an internal tax on the same good. Smith also fell to pressure in supporting some tariffs in support for national defense.[127] Some have also claimed, Emma Rothschild among them, that Smith supported a minimum wage.[128]Though, Smith had written in his book The Wealth of Nations:"The price of labour, it must be observed, cannot be ascertained very accurately anywhere, different prices being often paid at the same place and for the same sort of labour, not only according to the different abilities of the workmen, but according to the easiness or hardness of the masters. Where wages are not regulated by law, all that we can pretend to determine is what are the most usual; and experience seems to show that law can never regulate them properly, though it has often pretended to do so." (Source: The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 8)Smith also noted the inequality of bargaining power:[129]A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
NapoleonFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFor other uses, see Napoleon (disambiguation).Napoleon IThe Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries, by Jacques-Louis David, 1812Emperor of the FrenchReign18 May 1804 – 11 April 181420 March 1815 – 22 June 1815Coronation2 December 1804PredecessorHimself as First ConsulSuccessorLouis XVIII (de jure in 1814)King of ItalyReign17 March 1805 – 11 April 1814Coronation26 May 1805PredecessorHimself as President of ItalySuccessorNone (kingdom disbanded, next king of Italy was Victor Emmanuel II)SpouseJoséphine de BeauharnaisMarie Louise of AustriaIssueNapoleonIIFullnameNapoleonBonaparteHouseHouse of BonaparteFatherCarloBuonaparteMotherLetizia RamolinoBorn15 August 1769Ajaccio, Corsica, FranceDied5 May 1821 (aged 51)Longwood, Saint HelenaBurialLesInvalides, Paris, FranceSignatureReligionRoman Catholicism (seeReligions section)Imperial Standard of Napoleon INapoleon Bonaparte (French: Napoléon Bonaparte [napoleɔ̃ bɔnɑpaʁt], Italian: NapoleoneBuonaparte; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821) was a French military and political leader who rose to prominence during the latter stages of the French Revolution and its associated wars in Europe.As Napoleon I, he was Emperor of the French from 1804 to 1815, the first monarch of France bearing the title emperor since the reign of Charles the Fat (881–887). His legal reform, the Napoleonic Code, has been a major influence on many civil law jurisdictions worldwide, but he is best remembered for his role in the wars led against France by a series of coalitions, the so-called Napoleonic Wars. He established hegemony over most of continental Europe and sought to spread the ideals of the French Revolution, while consolidating an imperial monarchy which restored aspects of the deposed Ancien Régime. Due to his success in these wars, often against numerically superior enemies, he is generally regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and his campaigns are studied at military academies worldwide.[1]Napoleon was born at Ajaccio in Corsica in a family of noble Italian ancestry which had settled in Corsica in the 16th century. He trained as an artillery officer in mainland France. He rose to prominence under the French First Republic and led successful campaigns against the First and Second Coalitions arrayed against France. He led a successful invasion of the Italian peninsula.In 1799, he staged a coup d'état and installed himself as First Consul; five years later the French Senate proclaimed him emperor, following a plebiscite in his favour. In the first decade of the 19th century, the French Empire under Napoleon engaged in a series of conflicts—the Napoleonic Wars—that involved every major European power.[1] After a streak of victories, France secured a dominant position in continental Europe, and Napoleon maintained the French sphere of influence through the formation of extensive alliances and the elevation of friends and family members to rule other European countries as French vassal states.The Peninsular War and the invasion of Russia in 1812 marked turning points in Napoleon's fortunes. His Grande Armée was badly damaged in the campaign and never fully recovered. In 1813, the Sixth Coalition defeated his forces at Leipzig; the following year the Coalition invaded France, forced Napoleon to abdicate and exiled him to the island of Elba. Less than a year later, he escaped Elba and returned to power, but he was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815. Napoleon spent the last six years of his life in confinement by the British on the island of Saint Helena. An autopsy concluded he died of stomach cancer, but there has been some debate about the cause of his death, as some scholars have speculated that he was a victim of arsenic poisoning.Contents [hide] 1 Origins and education2 Early career2.1 Siege of Toulon2.2 13 Vendémiaire2.3 First Italian campaign2.4 Egyptian expedition3 Ruler of France3.1 French Consulate3.1.1 Temporary peace in Europe3.2 French Empire3.2.1 War of the Third Coalition3.2.2 Middle-Eastern alliances3.2.3 War of the Fourth Coalition3.2.4 Peninsular War3.2.5 War of the Fifth Coalition and remarriage3.2.6 Invasion of Russia3.2.7 War of the Sixth Coalition3.2.8 Exile to Elba3.2.9 Hundred Days4 Exile on Saint Helena4.1 Death4.1.1 Cause of death5 Reforms5.1 Napoleonic Code5.2 Metric system6 Religions6.1 Concordat6.2 Religious emancipation7 Personality8 Image9 Legacy9.1 Warfare9.2 Bonapartism9.3 Criticism9.4 Propaganda and memory9.5 Legacy outside France10 Marriages and children11 Titles, styles, honours and arms11.1 Titles and styles11.2 Full titles11.2.1 1804–180511.2.2 1805–180611.2.3 1806–180911.2.4 1809–181411.2.5 181512 Ancestry13 Notes14 Citations15 References16 External linksOrigins and educationNapoleon's father, Carlo Buonaparte, was Corsica's representative to the court ofLouis XVI of France.Napoleon was born on 15 August 1769 to Carlo Maria diBuonaparte and Maria LetiziaRamolino in his family's ancestral home, Casa Buonaparte, in the town of Ajaccio, Corsica.[2] He was their fourth child and third son.[2] This was a year after the island was transferred to France by theRepublic of Genoa.[3] He was christened NapoleonediBuonaparte, probably named for an uncle (an older brother, who did not survive infancy, was the first of the sons to be called Napoleone). In his twenties, he adopted the more French-sounding Napoléon Bonaparte.[4][note 1]The Corsican Buonapartes were descended from minor Italian nobility of Tuscan origin,[5][6][7][8] who had come to Corsica from Liguria in the 16th century.[9][10]His father, Nobile Carlo Buonaparte, an attorney, was named Corsica's representative to the court of Louis XVI in 1777. The dominant influence of Napoleon's childhood was his mother, LetiziaRamolino, whose firm discipline restrained a rambunctious child.[11] Napoleon's maternal grandmother had married into the Swiss Fesch family in her second marriage, and Napoleon's uncle, the later cardinal Joseph Fesch, would fulfill the role as protector of the Bonaparte family for some years.The nationalist Corsican leaderPasquale Paoli; portrait by Richard Cosway, 1798He had an elder brother, Joseph; and younger siblings, Lucien, Elisa, Louis, Pauline, Caroline and Jérôme. A boy and girl were born before Joseph but died in infancy.[12] Napoleon was baptised as a Catholic just before his second birthday, on 21 July 1771 at Ajaccio Cathedral.[13]Napoleon's noble, moderately affluent background and family connections afforded him greater opportunities to study than were available to a typical Corsican of the time.[14] In January 1779, Napoleon was enrolled at a religious school in Autun, in mainland France, to learn French. In May he was admitted to a military academyat Brienne-le-Château.[15] He spoke with a marked Corsican accent and never learned to spell properly.[16] Napoleon was teased by other students for his accent and applied himself to reading.[17] An examiner observed that Napoleon "has always been distinguished for his application in mathematics. He is fairly well acquainted with history and geography... This boy would make an excellent sailor."[18][note 2]On completion of his studies at Brienne in 1784, Napoleon was admitted to the elite ÉcoleMilitaire in Paris. This ended his naval ambition, which had led him to consider an application to the British Royal Navy.[20] He trained to become an artillery officer and, when his father's death reduced his income, was forced to complete the two-year course in one year.[21] He was the first Corsican to graduate from the ÉcoleMilitaire.[21] He had been tested by the famed scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace, whom Napoleon later appointed to the Senate.[22]Early careerNapoleon Bonaparte, aged 23, Lieutenant-Colonel of a battalion of Corsican Republican volunteersUpon graduating in September 1785, Bonaparte was commissioned a second lieutenant in La Fère artillery regiment.[15][note 3] He served on garrison duty in Valence and Auxonne until after the outbreak of the Revolution in 1789, and took nearly two years' leave in Corsica and Paris during this period. A fervent Corsican nationalist, Bonaparte wrote to the Corsican leader Pasquale Paoli in May 1789:As the nation was perishing I was born. Thirty thousand Frenchmen were vomited on to our shores, drowning the throne of liberty in waves of blood. Such was the odious sight which was the first to strike me.[24]He spent the early years of the Revolution in Corsica, fighting in a complex three-way struggle among royalists, revolutionaries, and Corsican nationalists. He supported the revolutionary Jacobin faction, gained the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Corsican militia, and gained command over a battalion of volunteers. Despite exceeding his leave of absence and leading a riot against a French army in Corsica, he was promoted to captain in the regular army in July 1792.[25]He returned to Corsica and came into conflict with Paoli, who had decided to split with France and sabotage the French assault on the Sardinianisland of La Maddalena in February 1793, where Bonaparte was one of the expedition leaders.[26] Bonaparte and his family fled to the French mainland in June 1793 because of the split with Paoli.[27]Siege of ToulonMain article: Siege of ToulonIn July 1793, he published a pro-republican pamphlet, Le souper de Beaucaire (Supper at Beaucaire), which gained him the admiration and support of Augustin Robespierre, younger brother of the Revolutionary leader Maximilien Robespierre. With the help of his fellow Corsican Antoine Christophe Saliceti, Bonaparte was appointed artillery commander of the republican forces at the siege of Toulon. The city had risen against the republican government and was occupied by British troops.[28]Bonaparte at the Siege of ToulonHe adopted a plan to capture a hill where republican guns could dominate the city's harbour and force the British ships to evacuate. The assault on the position, during which Bonaparte was wounded in the thigh, led to the capture of the city. He was promoted to brigadier general at the age of 24. Catching the attention of the Committee of Public Safety, he was put in charge of the artillery of France's Army of Italy.[29]Whilst waiting for confirmation of this post, Napoleon spent time as inspector of coastal fortifications on the Mediterranean coast near Marseille. He devised plans for attacking the Kingdom of Sardinia as part of France's campaign against the First Coalition.[30] The commander of the Army of Italy, Pierre JadartDumerbion, had seen too many generals executed for failing or for having the wrong political views. Therefore, he deferred to the powerful représentants en mission, Augustin Robespierre and Saliceti, who in turn were ready to listen to the freshly promoted artillery general.[31]Carrying out Bonaparte's plan in the Battle of Saorgio in April 1794, the French army advanced north-east along the Italian Riviera then turned north to seize Ormea in the mountains. From Ormea, they thrust west to outflank the Austro-Sardinian positions around Saorge. As a result, the coastal towns of Oneglia and Loano, as well as the strategic Col de Tende (Tenda Pass), were taken by the French.[32] Later, Augustin Robespierre sent Bonaparte on a mission to the Republic of Genoa to determine that country's intentions towards France.[30]13 VendémiaireMain article: 13 VendémiaireJournée du 13 Vendémiaire. Artillery fire in front of the Church of Saint-Roch, Paris,Rue Saint-HonoréFollowing the fall of the Robespierres in the Thermidorian Reaction in July 1794, one account alleges that Bonaparte was put underhouse arrest at Nice for his association with the brothers. Napoleon's secretary, Bourrienne, disputed this allegation in his memoirs. According to Bourrienne, jealousy between the Army of the Alps and the Army of Italy (with whom Napoleon was seconded at the time) was responsible.[33] After an impassioned defense in a letter Bonaparte dispatched to representantsSalicetti and Albitte, he was acquitted of any wrongdoing.[34]He was released within two weeks and, due to his technical skills, was asked to draw up plans to attack Italian positions in the context of France's war with Austria. He also took part in an expedition to take back Corsica from the British, but the French were repulsed by the Royal Navy.[35]Bonaparte became engaged to Désirée Clary, whose sister, Julie Clary, married Bonaparte's elder brother Joseph; the Clarys were a wealthy merchant family from Marseilles.[36] In April 1795, he was assigned to the Army of the West, which was engaged in the War in the Vendée—a civil war and royalist counter-revolution in Vendée, a region in west central France, on the Atlantic Ocean. As an infantry command, it was a demotion from artillery general—for which the army already had a full quota—and he pleaded poor health to avoid the posting.[37]He was moved to the Bureau of Topography of the Committee of Public Safety and sought, unsuccessfully, to be transferred to Constantinople in order to offer his services to theSultan.[38] During this period, he wrote a romantic novella, Clisson et Eugénie, about a soldier and his lover, in a clear parallel to Bonaparte's own relationship with Désirée.[39] On 15 September, Bonaparte was removed from the list of generals in regular service for his refusal to serve in the Vendée campaign. He faced a difficult financial situation and reduced career prospects.[40]On 3 October, royalists in Paris declared a rebellion against the National Convention after they were excluded from a new government, the Directory.[41] Paul Barras, a leader of the Thermidorian Reaction, knew of Bonaparte's military exploits at Toulon and gave him command of the improvised forces in defence of the Convention in the Tuileries Palace. Having seen the massacre of the King's Swiss Guard there three years earlier, he realised artillery would be the key to its defence.[15]He ordered a young cavalry officer, Joachim Murat, to seize large cannons and used them to repel the attackers on 5 October 1795—13 Vendémiaire An IV in the French Republican Calendar. After 1,400 royalists died, the rest fled.[41] He had cleared the streets with "a whiff of grapeshot", according to the 19th-century historian Thomas Carlyle inThe French Revolution: A History.[42]The defeat of the royalist insurrection extinguished the threat to the Convention and earned Bonaparte sudden fame, wealth, and the patronage of the new Directory. Murat married one of his sisters and became his brother-in-law; he also served under Napoleon as one of his generals. Bonaparte was promoted to Commander of the Interior and given command of the Army of Italy.[27]Within weeks he was romantically attached to Barras's former mistress, Joséphine de Beauharnais. They married on 9 March 1796 after he had broken off his engagement to Désirée Clary.[43]First Italian campaignMain article: Italian campaigns of the French Revolutionary WarsBonaparte at the Pont d'Arcole, by Baron Antoine-Jean Gros, (ca. 1801), Musée du Louvre, ParisTwo days after the marriage, Bonaparte left Paris to take command of the Army of Italy and led it on a successful invasion of Italy. At the Battle of Lodi he defeated Austrian forces and drove them out of Lombardy.[27] He was defeated at Caldiero by Austrian reinforcements, led by JózsefAlvinczi, though Bonaparte regained the initiative at the crucial Battle of the Bridge of Arcole and proceeded to subdue the Papal States.[44]Bonaparte argued against the wishes of Directory atheists to march on Rome and dethrone the Pope as he reasoned this would create a power vacuum which would be exploited by the Kingdom of Naples. Instead, in March 1797, Bonaparte led his army into Austria and forced it tonegotiate peace.[45] The Treaty of Leoben gave France control of most of northern Italy and the Low Countries, and a secret clause promised theRepublic of Venice to Austria. Bonaparte marched on Venice and forced its surrender, ending 1,100 years of independence; he also authorised the French to loot treasures such as the Horses of Saint Mark.[46]His application of conventional military ideas to real-world situations effected his military triumphs, such as creative use of artillery as a mobile force to support his infantry. He referred to his tactics thus: "I have fought sixty battles and I have learned nothing which I did not know at the beginning. Look at Caesar; he fought the first like the last."[47]Napoleon at the Battle of Rivoli, byPhilippoteauxHe was adept at espionage and deception and could win battles by concealment of troop deployments and concentration of his forces on the 'hinge' of an enemy's weakened front. If he could not use his favourite envelopment strategy, he would take up the central position and attack two co-operating forces at their hinge, swing round to fight one until it fled, then turn to face the other.[48] In this Italian campaign, Bonaparte's army captured 150,000 prisoners, 540 cannons and 170 standards.[49] The French army fought 67 actions and won 18 pitched battles through superior artillery technology and Bonaparte's tactics.[50]During the campaign, Bonaparte became increasingly influential in French politics; he founded two newspapers: one for the troops in his army and another for circulation in France.[51] The royalists attacked Bonaparte for looting Italy and warned he might become a dictator.[52] Bonaparte sent General Pierre Augereau to Paris to lead a coup d'état and purge the royalists on 4 September — Coup of 18 Fructidor. This left Barras and his Republican allies in control again but dependent on Bonaparte, who proceeded to peace negotiations with Austria. These negotiations resulted in the Treaty of Campo Formio, and Bonaparte returned to Paris in December as a hero.[53] He met Talleyrand, France's new Foreign Minister—who would later serve in the same capacity for Emperor Napoleon—and they began to prepare for an invasion of Britain.[27]Egyptian expeditionMain article: French campaign in Egypt and SyriaNapoleon enters Alexandriaon 3 July 1798 by Guillaume-François Colson, 1800Napoleon Bonaparte Before the Sphinx, (ca. 1868) by Jean-LéonGérôme, Hearst CastleBattle of the Pyramids on 21 July 1798 by Louis-François, Baron Lejeune, 1808After two months of planning, Bonaparte decided France's naval power was not yet strong enough to confront the Royal Navy in the English Channel and proposed a military expedition to seize Egypt and thereby undermine Britain's access to its trade interests in India.[27] Bonaparte wished to establish a French presence in the Middle East, with the ultimate dream of linking with a Muslim enemy of the British in India, Tipu Sultan.[54]Napoleon assured the Directory that "as soon as he had conquered Egypt, he will establish relations with the Indian princes and, together with them, attack the English in their possessions."[55] According to a report written in February 1798 by Talleyrand: "Having occupied and fortified Egypt, we shall send a force of 15,000 men from Suez to India, to join the forces of Tipu-Sahib and drive away the English."[55] The Directory agreed in order to secure a trade route to India.[56]In May 1798, Bonaparte was elected a member of the French Academy of Sciences. His Egyptian expedition included a group of 167 scientists: mathematicians, naturalists, chemists and geodesists among them; their discoveries included the Rosetta Stone, and their work was published in the Description de l'Égypte in 1809.[57]En route to Egypt, Bonaparte reached Malta on 9 June 1798, then controlled by the Knights Hospitaller. The two-hundred Knights of French origin did not support the Grand Master, Ferdinand von HompeschzuBolheim, who had succeeded a Frenchman, and made it clear they would not fight against their compatriots. Hompesch surrendered after token resistance, and Bonaparte captured an important naval base with the loss of only three men.[58]General Bonaparte and his expedition eluded pursuit by the Royal Navy and on 1 July landed at Alexandria.[27] He fought the Battle of Shubra Khit against the Mamluks, Egypt's ruling military caste. This helped the French practice their defensive tactic for the Battle of the Pyramids, fought on 21 July, about 24 km (15 mi) from the pyramids. General Bonaparte's forces of 25,000 roughly equalled those of the Mamluks' Egyptian cavalry, but he formed hollow squares with supplies kept safely inside. Twenty-nine French[59] and approximately 2,000 Egyptians were killed. The victory boosted the morale of the French army.[60]On 1 August, the British fleet under Horatio Nelson captured or destroyed all but two French vessels in the Battle of the Nile, and Bonaparte's goal of a strengthened French position in the Mediterranean was frustrated.[61] His army had succeeded in a temporary increase of French power in Egypt, though it faced repeated uprisings.[62] In early 1799, he moved an army into the Ottoman province of Damascus (Syria and Galilee). Bonaparte led these 13,000 French soldiers in the conquest of the coastal towns of Arish, Gaza, Jaffa, and Haifa.[63] The attack on Jaffa was particularly brutal: Bonaparte, on discovering many of the defenders were former prisoners of war, ostensibly on parole, ordered the garrison and 1,400 prisoners to be executed by bayonet or drowning to save bullets.[61] Men, women and children were robbed and murdered for three days.[64]With his army weakened by disease—mostly bubonic plague—and poor supplies, Bonaparte was unable to reduce the fortress of Acreand returned to Egypt in May.[61] To speed up the retreat, he ordered plague-stricken men to be poisoned.[65] (However, British eyewitness accounts later showed that most of the men were still alive and had not been poisoned.) His supporters have argued this was necessary given the continued harassment of stragglers by Ottoman forces, and indeed those left behind alive were tortured and beheaded by the Ottomans. Back in Egypt, on 25 July, Bonaparte defeated an Ottoman amphibious invasion at Abukir.[66]Ruler of FranceMain articles: 18 Brumaire and Napoleonic eraGeneral Bonaparte surrounded by members of the Council of Five Hundred during the 18 Brumaire coup d'état, byFrançoisBouchotWhile in Egypt, Bonaparte stayed informed of European affairs through irregular delivery of newspapers and dispatches. He learned that France had suffered a series of defeats in the War of the Second Coalition.[67] On 24 August 1799, he took advantage of the temporary departure of British ships from French coastal ports and set sail for France, despite the fact he had received no explicit orders from Paris.[61] The army was left in the charge of Jean BaptisteKléber.[68]Unknown to Bonaparte, the Directory had sent him orders to return to ward off possible invasions of French soil, but poor lines of communication prevented the delivery of these messages.[67] By the time he reached Paris in October, France's situation had been improved by a series of victories. The Republic was, however, bankrupt and the ineffective Directory was unpopular with the French population.[69] The Directory discussed Bonaparte's "desertion" but was too weak to punish him.[67]Bonaparte was approached by one of the Directors, Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, to solicit his support in a coup to overthrow theconstitutional government. The leaders of the plot included his brother Lucien; the speaker of the Council of Five Hundred, Roger Ducos; another Director, Joseph Fouché; and Talleyrand. On 9 November (18 Brumaire by the French Republican Calendar) Bonaparte was charged with the safety of the legislative councils, who were persuaded to relocate to the Château de Saint-Cloud, to the west of Paris, after the plotters spread rumours of an imminent Jacobin insurrection.[70] By the following day, the deputies realised that in fact they were the victims of a coup. Bonaparte led troops to seize control and disperse them, which left a rump legislature to name Bonaparte, Sieyès, and Ducos as provisional Consuls to administer the government.[61]French ConsulateMain articles: French Consulate and War of the Second CoalitionThough Sieyès expected to dominate the new regime, he was outmanoeuvred by Bonaparte, who drafted the Constitution of the Year VIII and secured his own election as First Consul, and he took up residence at the Tuileries.[71] This made Bonaparte the most powerful person in France.[61] The constitution was approved in a plebiscite held the following January, with 99.94 percent officially listed as voting "yes"—an implausibly high result that could have only been obtained through fraud.In 1800, Bonaparte and his troops crossed the Alps into Italy, where French forces had been almost completely driven out by the Austrians whilst he was in Egypt.[note 4] The campaign began badly for the French after Bonaparte made strategic errors; one force was left besieged at Genoa but managed to hold out and thereby occupy Austrian resources.[73] This effort, and French general Louis Desaix's timely reinforcements, allowed Bonaparte narrowly to avoid defeat and to triumph over the Austrians in June at the significant Battle of Marengo.[74]Bonaparte's brother Joseph led the peace negotiations in Lunéville and reported that Austria, emboldened by British support, would not recognise France's newly gained territory. As negotiations became increasingly fractious, Bonaparte gave orders to his general Moreau to strike Austria once more. Moreau led France to victory at Hohenlinden. As a result, theTreaty of Lunéville was signed in February 1801; the French gains of the Treaty of Campo Formio were reaffirmed and increased.[74]Temporary peace in EuropeSee also: Haitian RevolutionBonaparte, First Consul, byJeanAuguste Dominique IngresBoth France and Britain had become tired of war and signed the Treaty of Amiens in October 1801 and March 1802. This called for the withdrawal of British troops from most colonial territories it had recently occupied.[73] Bolstered by this treaty, Napoleon was made First Consul for life in a 10 May plebiscite, with an implausible 99.76 percent voting in favour.The peace was uneasy and short-lived. Britain did not evacuate Malta as promised and protested against Bonaparte's annexation of Piedmont and his Act of Mediation, which established a new Swiss Confederation, though neither of these territories were covered by the treaty.[75] The dispute culminated in a declaration of war by Britain in May 1803, and he reassembled the invasion camp at Boulogne.[61]Bonaparte faced a major setback and eventual defeat in the Haitian Revolution. By the Law of 20 May 1802 Bonaparte re-established slavery in France's colonial possessions, where it had been banned following the Revolution.[76] Following a slave revolt, he sent an army to reconquerSaint-Domingue and establish a base. The force was, however, destroyed by yellow fever and fierce resistance led by Haitian generals Toussaint Louverture and Jean-Jacques Dessalines. Faced by imminent war against Britain and bankruptcy, he recognised French possessions on the mainland of North America would be indefensible and sold them to the United States—the Louisiana Purchase—for less than three cents per acre (7.4 cents per hectare).[77]French EmpireMain article: First French EmpireSee also: Coronation of Napoleon I and Napoleonic WarsNapoleon faced royalist and Jacobin plots as France's ruler, including the Conspiration des poignards (Dagger plot) in October 1800 and the Plot of the Rue Saint-Nicaise (also known as the infernal machine) two months later.[78] In January 1804, his police uncovered an assassination plot against him which involved Moreau and which was ostensibly sponsored by the Bourbon former rulers of France. On the advice of Talleyrand, Napoleon ordered the kidnapping of Louis Antoine, Duke of Enghien, in violation of neighbouringBaden's sovereignty. After a secret trial the Duke was executed, even though he had not been involved in the plot.[79]The Coronation of Napoleon byJacques-Louis David in 1804Napoleon used the plot to justify the re-creation of a hereditary monarchy in France, with himself as emperor, as a Bourbon restoration would be more difficult if the Bonapartist succession was entrenched in the constitution.[80] Napoleon was elected as "Emperor of the French" in a plebiscite held in November. As before, this vote was implausibly lopsided, with 99.93 percent officially voting yes.He was crowned by Pope Pius VII as Napoleon I, on 2 December 1804 at Notre Dame de Paris and then crowned Joséphine Empress. The story that Napoleon seized the crown out of the hands of Pope Pius VII during the ceremony to avoid his subjugation to the authority of the pontiff is apocryphal; the coronation procedure had been agreed in advance.[note 5][81] Ludwig van Beethoven, a long-time admirer, was disappointed at this turn towards imperialism and scratched his dedication to Napoleon from his 3rd Symphony.[80]At Milan Cathedral on 26 May 1805, Napoleon was crowned King of Italy with the Iron Crown of Lombardy. He created eighteen Marshals of the Empire from amongst his top generals, to secure the allegiance of the army.War of the Third CoalitionMain article: War of the Third CoalitionNapoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz, by François Gérard1805. The Battle of Austerlitz, also known as the Battle of the Three Emperors, was Napoleon's greatest victory, where theFrench Empire effectively crushed the Third Coalition.Great Britain broke the Peace of Amiens and declared war on France in May 1803. Napoleon set up a camp at Boulogne-sur-Mer to prepare for an invasion of Britain. By 1805, Britain had convinced Austria and Russia to join a Third Coalition against France. Napoleon knew the French fleet could not defeat the Royal Navy in a head-to-head battle and planned to lure it away from the English Channel.[82]The French Navy would escape from the British blockades of Toulon and Brest and threaten to attack the West Indies, thus drawing off the British defence of the Western Approaches, in the hope a Franco-Spanish fleet could take control of the channel long enough for French armies to cross from Boulogne and invade England.[82] However, after defeat at the navalBattle of Cape Finisterre in July 1805 and Admiral Villeneuve's retreat to Cádiz, invasion was never again a realistic option for Napoleon.[83]As the Austrian army marched on Bavaria, he called the invasion of Britain off and ordered the army stationed at Boulogne, his Grande Armée, to march to Germany secretly in a turning movement—the Ulm Campaign. This encircled the Austrian forces about to attack France and severed their lines of communication. On 20 October 1805, the French captured 30,000 prisoners at Ulm, though the next day Britain's victory at the Battle of Trafalgar meant the Royal Navy gained control of the seas.[84]Six weeks later, on the first anniversary of his coronation, Napoleon defeated Austria and Russia at Austerlitz. This ended the Third Coalition, and he commissioned the Arc de Triomphe to commemorate the victory. Austria had to concede territory; the Peace of Pressburg led to the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and creation of the Confederation of the Rhine with Napoleon named as its Protector.[84]Napoleon would go on to say, "The battle of Austerlitz is the finest of all I have fought."[85] Frank McLynn suggests Napoleon was so successful at Austerlitz he lost touch with reality, and what used to be French foreign policy became a "personal Napoleonic one".[86] Vincent Cronin disagrees, stating Napoleon was not overly ambitious for himself, that "he embodied the ambitions of thirty million Frenchmen".[87]Middle-Eastern alliancesMain articles: Franco-Ottoman alliance and Franco-Persian allianceThe Persian Envoy Mirza Mohammed Reza-Qazvini meets with Napoleon I atFinckenstein Palace, 27 April 1807, byFrançoisMulardEven after the failed campaign in Egypt, Napoleon continued to entertain a grand scheme to establish a French presence in the Middle East.[54] An alliance with Middle-Eastern powers would have the strategic advantage of pressuring Russia on its southern border. From 1803, Napoleon went to considerable lengths to try to convince the Ottoman Empire to fight against Russia in the Balkans and join his anti-Russian coalition.[88]Napoleon sent General Horace Sebastiani as envoy extraordinary, promising to help the Ottoman Empire recover lost territories.[88] In February 1806, following Napoleon's victory at Austerlitz and the ensuing dismemberment of the Habsburg Empire, the Ottoman EmperorSelim III finally recognised Napoleon as Emperor, formally opting for an alliance with France "our sincere and natural ally", and war with Russia and England.[89]A Franco-Persian alliance was also formed, from 1807 to 1809, between Napoleon and the Persian Empire of Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar, against Russia and Great Britain. The alliance ended when France allied with Russia and turned its focus to European campaigns.[54]War of the Fourth CoalitionMain article: War of the Fourth CoalitionThe Treaties of Tilsit: Napoleon meeting with Alexander I of Russia on a raft in the middle of the Neman RiverThe Fourth Coalition was assembled in 1806, and Napoleon defeated Prussia at the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt in October.[90] He marched against advancing Russian armies through Poland and was involved in the bloody stalemate of the Battle of Eylau on 6 February 1807.[91]After a decisive victory at Friedland, he signed the Treaties of Tilsit; one with Tsar Alexander I of Russia which divided the continent between the two powers; the other with Prussia which stripped that country of half its territory. Napoleon placed puppet rulers on the thrones of German states, including his brother Jérôme as king of the new Kingdom of Westphalia. In the French-controlled part of Poland, he established the Duchy of Warsaw with King Frederick Augustus I of Saxony as ruler.[92]With his Milan and Berlin Decrees, Napoleon attempted to enforce a Europe-wide commercial boycott of Britain called the Continental System. This act of economic warfare did not succeed, as it encouraged British merchants to smuggle into continental Europe, and Napoleon's exclusively land-based customs enforcers could not stop them.[93]Peninsular WarMain article: Peninsular WarPortugal did not comply with the Continental System, so in 1807 Napoleon invaded with the support of Spain. Under the pretext of a reinforcement of the Franco-Spanish army occupying Portugal, Napoleon invaded Spain as well, replaced Charles IV with his brother Joseph and placed his brother-in-law Joachim Murat in Joseph's stead at Naples. This led to resistance from the Spanish army and civilians in the Dos de Mayo Uprising.[94]Joseph Bonaparte, Napoleon's brother, as King of SpainIn Spain, Napoleon faced a new type of war, termed a guerrilla or little war, in which the local population, inspired by religion and patriotism, was heavily involved. The French had to contend not only with the Spanish-allied regular armies, but also opposition by the local populace via various types of low intensity conflict such as ambushes, sabotage and armed uprisings.Following a French retreat from much of the country, Napoleon took command and defeated the Spanish Army. He retook Madrid, then outmanoeuvred a British army sent to support the Spanish and drove it to the coast.[95] Before the Spanish population had been fully subdued, Austria again threatened war, and Napoleon returned to France.[96]The costly and often brutal Peninsular War continued in Napoleon's absence; in the second Siege of Zaragoza most of the city was destroyed and over 50,000 people perished.[97] Although Napoleon left 300,000 of his finest troops to battle Spanish guerrillas as well as British and Portuguese forces commanded by Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, French control over the peninsula again deteriorated.[98]Following several allied victories, the war concluded after Napoleon's abdication in 1814.[99] Napoleon later described the Peninsular War as central to his final defeat, writing in his memoirs "That unfortunate war destroyed me... All... my disasters are bound up in that fatal knot."[100]War of the Fifth Coalition and remarriageMain article: War of the Fifth CoalitionNapoleon at Wagram, painted by Horace VernetIn April 1809, Austria abruptly broke its alliance with France, and Napoleon was forced to assume command of forces on the Danube and German fronts. After early successes, the French faced difficulties in crossing the Danube and suffered a defeat in May at the Battle of Aspern-Essling near Vienna. The Austrians failed to capitalise on the situation and allowed Napoleon's forces to regroup. He defeated the Austrians again at Wagram, and the Treaty of Schönbrunn was signed between Austria and France.[101]Britain was the other member of the coalition. In addition to the Iberian Peninsula, the British planned to open another front in mainland Europe. However, Napoleon was able to rush reinforcements to Antwerp, owing to Britain's inadequately organised Walcheren Campaign.[102]He concurrently annexed the Papal States because of the Church's refusal to support the Continental System; Pope Pius VII responded by excommunicating the emperor. The pope was then abducted by Napoleon's officers, and though Napoleon had not ordered his abduction, he did not order Pius' release. The pope was moved throughout Napoleon's territories, sometimes while ill, and Napoleon sent delegations to pressure him on issues including agreement to a new concordat with France, which Pius refused. In 1810 Napoleon married Archduchess Marie Louise of Austria, following his divorce of Joséphine; this further strained his relations with the Church, and thirteen cardinals were imprisoned for non-attendance at the marriage ceremony.[103] The pope remained confined for 5 years and did not return to Rome until May 1814.[104]First French Empire at its greatest extent in 1811 French Empire French satellite states Allied statesIn November 1810, Napoleon consented to the ascent to the Swedish throne of Bernadotte, one of his marshals, with whom Napoleon had always had strained relations. Napoleon had indulged Bernadotte's indiscretions because he was married to Désirée Clary, his former fiancée and sister of the wife of his brother Joseph. Napoleon came to regret accepting this appointment when Bernadotte later allied Sweden with France's enemies.[105]Invasion of RussiaMain article: French invasion of RussiaThe Moscow fire depicted by an unknown German artistThe Congress of Erfurt sought to preserve the Russo-French alliance, and the leaders had a friendly personal relationship after their first meeting at Tilsit in 1807.[106] By 1811, however, tensions had increased and Alexander was under pressure from the Russian nobility to break off the alliance. An early sign the relationship had deteriorated was the Russian's virtual abandonment of the Continental System, which led Napoleon to threaten Alexander with serious consequences if he formed an alliance with Britain.[107]By 1812, advisers to Alexander suggested the possibility of an invasion of the French Empire and the recapture of Poland. On receipt of intelligence reports on Russia's war preparations, Napoleon expanded his Grande Armée to more than 450,000 men.[108] He ignored repeated advice against an invasion of the Russian heartland and prepared for an offensive campaign; on 23 June 1812 the invasion commenced.[109]Napoleon's withdrawal from Russia, a painting by Adolph NorthenIn an attempt to gain increased support from Polish nationalists and patriots, Napoleon termed the war the Second Polish War—the First Polish War had been the Bar Confederation uprising by Polish nobles against Russia in 1768. Polish patriots wanted the Russian part of Poland to be joined with the Duchy of Warsaw and an independent Poland created. This was rejected by Napoleon, who stated he had promised his ally Austria this would not happen. Napoleon refused to manumit the Russian serfs because of concerns this might provoke a reaction in his army's rear. The serfs later committed atrocities against French soldiers during France's retreat.[110]The Russians avoided Napoleon's objective of a decisive engagement and instead retreated deeper into Russia. A brief attempt at resistance was made at Smolensk in August; the Russians were defeated in a series of battles, and Napoleon resumed his advance. The Russians again avoided battle, although in a few cases this was only achieved because Napoleon uncharacteristically hesitated to attack when the opportunity arose. Owing to the Russian army's scorched earth tactics, the French found it increasingly difficult to forage food for themselves and their horses.[111]The Russians eventually offered battle outside Moscow on 7 September: the Battle of Borodino resulted in approximately 44,000 Russian and 35,000 French dead, wounded or captured, and may have been the bloodiest day of battle in history up to that point in time.[112]Although the French had won, the Russian army had accepted, and withstood, the major battle Napoleon had hoped would be decisive. Napoleon's own account was: "The most terrible of all my battles was the one before Moscow. The French showed themselves to be worthy of victory, but the Russians showed themselves worthy of being invincible."[113]The Russian army withdrew and retreated past Moscow. Napoleon entered the city, assuming its fall would end the war and Alexander would negotiate peace. However, on orders of the city's governor Feodor Rostopchin, rather than capitulation, Moscow was burned. After a month, concerned about loss of control back in France, Napoleon and his army left.[114]The French suffered greatly in the course of a ruinous retreat, including from the harshness of the Russian Winter. The Armée had begun as over 400,000 frontline troops, but in the end fewer than 40,000 crossed the Berezina River in November 1812.[115] The Russians had lost 150,000 in battle and hundreds of thousands of civilians.[116]War of the Sixth CoalitionMain article: War of the Sixth CoalitionAdieux de Napoléon à la Gardeimpérialedans la cour du Cheval-Blanc du château de Fontainebleau [Napoleon's farewell to the Imperial Guard in the White Horse courtyard of the Palace of Fontainebleau] – on 20 April 1814; by Antoine Alphonse Montfort, Palace of Versailles national museumThere was a lull in fighting over the winter of 1812–13 while both the Russians and the French rebuilt their forces; Napoleon was then able to field 350,000 troops.[117] Heartened by France's loss in Russia, Prussia joined with Austria, Sweden, Russia, Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal in a new coalition. Napoleon assumed command in Germany and inflicted a series of defeats on the Coalition culminating in the Battle of Dresden in August 1813.[118]Despite these successes, the numbers continued to mount against Napoleon, and the French army was pinned down by a force twice its size and lost at the Battle of Leipzig. This was by far the largest battle of the Napoleonic Wars and cost more than 90,000 casualties in total.[119]Napoleon withdrew back into France, his army reduced to 70,000 soldiers and 40,000 stragglers, against more than three times as many Allied troops.[120] The French were surrounded: British armies pressed from the south, and other Coalition forces positioned to attack from the German states. Napoleon won a series of victories in the Six Days' Campaign, though these were not significant enough to turn the tide; Paris was captured by the Coalition in March 1814.[121]On 2 April, the Sénatconservateur passed the Acte de déchéance de l'Empereur ("Emperor's Demise Act"), which declared Napoleon deposed. Napoleon had advanced as far as Fontainebleau when he learned that Paris had surrendered. When Napoleon proposed the army march on the capital, his marshals decided to mutiny.[122] On 4 April, led by Ney, they confronted Napoleon. Napoleon asserted the army would follow him, and Ney replied the army would follow its generals. Bowing to the inevitable, on 4 April he abdicated in favour of his son, with Marie-Louise as regent. However, the Allies refused to accept this under prodding from Alexander, who suggested that Napoleon might find an excuse to retake the throne. Bowing to the inevitable, Napoleon was forced to announce his unconditional abdication only two days later.Exile to ElbaBritish etching from 1814 in celebration of Napoleon's first exile to Elba at the close of the War of the Sixth CoalitionThe Allied Powers having declared that Emperor Napoleon was the sole obstacle to the restoration of peace in Europe, Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his oath, declares that he renounces, for himself and his heirs, the thrones of France and Italy, and that there is no personal sacrifice, even that of his life, which he is not ready to do in the interests of France.Done in the palace of Fontainebleau, 11 April 1814.—Act of abdication of Napoleon[123]In the Treaty of Fontainebleau, the victors exiled him to Elba, an island of 12,000 inhabitants in the Mediterranean, 20 km (12 mi) off theTuscan coast. They gave him sovereignty over the island and allowed him to retain his title of emperor. Napoleon attempted suicide with a pill he had carried since a near-capture by Russians on the retreat from Moscow. Its potency had weakened with age, and he survived to be exiled while his wife and son took refuge in Austria.[124] In the first few months on Elba he created a small navy and army, developed the iron mines, and issued decrees on modern agricultural methods.[125]Hundred DaysMain article: Hundred DaysNapoleon returned from Elba, by Karl Stenben, 19th centurySeparated from his wife and son, who had come under Austrian control, cut off from the allowance guaranteed to him by the Treaty of Fontainebleau, and aware of rumours he was about to be banished to a remote island in the Atlantic Ocean, Napoleon escaped from Elba on 26 February 1815. He landed at Golfe-Juan on the French mainland, two days later.[126]The 5th Regiment was sent to intercept him and made contact just south of Grenoble on 7 March 1815. Napoleon approached the regiment alone, dismounted his horse and, when he was within gunshot range, shouted, "Here I am. Kill your Emperor, if you wish."[127]The soldiers responded with, "Vive L'Empereur!" and marched with Napoleon to Paris; Louis XVIII fled. On 13 March, the powers at theCongress of Vienna declared Napoleon an outlaw, and four days later Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia bound themselves to each put 150,000 men into the field to end his rule.[128]Napoleon arrived in Paris on 20 March and governed for a period now called the Hundred Days. By the start of June the armed forces available to him had reached 200,000, and he decided to go on the offensive to attempt to drive a wedge between the oncoming British and Prussian armies. The French Army of the North crossed the frontier into the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, in modern-day Belgium.[129]Napoleon's forces fought the allies, led by Wellington and GebhardLeberecht von Blücher, at the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June 1815. Wellington's army withstood repeated attacks by the French and drove them from the field while the Prussians arrived in force and broke through Napoleon's right flank. Napoleon was defeated because he had to fight two armies with one, attacking an army in an excellent defensive position through wet and muddy terrain.His poor health that day may have affected his presence and vigour on the field, added to the fact that his subordinates may have let him down. Despite this, Napoleon came very close to victory. Outnumbered, the French army left the battlefield in disorder.Napoleon returned to Paris and found that both the legislature and the people had turned violently on him. Realizing that his position was untenable, he abdicated on 22 June in favour of his son. He left Paris three days later and settled at Josephine's former home in Malmaison. Coalition forces swept into France soon afterward, intent on restoring Louis XVIII to the French throne.When Napoleon got word that Prussian troops had orders to capture him dead or alive, he fled to Rochefort, intending to escape to the United States. However, with British ships blocking every port to prevent his escape, Napoleon formally demanded political asylum from the British Captain Frederick Maitland on HMS Bellerophon on 15 July 1815.[130]Exile on Saint HelenaNapoleon on Saint HelenaNapoleon was imprisoned and then exiled to the island of Saint Helena in the Atlantic Ocean, 1,870 km (1,162 mi) from the west coast of Africa. In his first two months there, he lived in a pavilion on the Briars estate, which belonged to a William Balcombe. Napoleon became friendly with his family, especially his younger daughter Lucia Elizabeth who later wrote Recollections of the Emperor Napoleon.[131] This friendship ended in 1818 when British authorities became suspicious that Balcombe had acted as an intermediary between Napoleon and Paris and dismissed him from the island.[132]Napoleon moved to Longwood House in December 1815; it had fallen into disrepair, and the location was damp, windswept and unhealthy. The Times published articles insinuating the British government was trying to hasten his death, and he often complained of the living conditions in letters to the governor and his custodian, Hudson Lowe.[133]With a small cadre of followers, Napoleon dictated his memoirs and criticised his captors—particularly Lowe. Lowe's treatment of Napoleon is regarded as poor by historians such as Frank McLynn.[134] Lowe exacerbated a difficult situation through measures including a reduction in Napoleon's expenditure, a rule that no gifts could be delivered to him if they mentioned his imperial status, and a document his supporters had to sign that guaranteed they would stay with the prisoner indefinitely.[134]Longwood House, Saint Helena: site of Napoleon's captivityIn 1818, The Times reported a false rumour of Napoleon's escape and said the news had been greeted by spontaneous illuminations in London.[note 6] There was sympathy for him in the British Parliament: Lord Holland gave a speech which demanded the prisoner be treated with no unnecessary harshness.[136] Napoleon kept himself informed of the events through The Times and hoped for release in the event that Holland became prime minister. He also enjoyed the support of Lord Cochrane, who was involved in Chile's and Brazil's struggle for independence and wanted to rescue Napoleon and help him set up a new empire in South America, a scheme frustrated by Napoleon's death in 1821.[137]There were other plots to rescue Napoleon from captivity including one from Texas, where exiled soldiers from the Grande Armée wanted a resurrection of the Napoleonic Empire in America. There was even a plan to rescue him with a primitive submarine.[138] For Lord Byron, Napoleon was the epitome of the Romantic hero, the persecuted, lonely and flawed genius. The news that Napoleon had taken up gardening at Longwood also appealed to more domestic British sensibilities.[139]DeathFurther information: Napoleon's Death Mask and Retour des cendresNapoleon's funeral carriage passes along the Champs-Élysées, engraving by Louis-JulienJacottet after a drawing by Louis MarchandHis personal physician, Barry O'Meara, warned the authorities of his declining state of health mainly caused, according to him, by the harsh treatment of the captive in the hands of his "gaoler", Lowe, which led Napoleon to confine himself for months in his damp and wretched habitation of Longwood. O'Meara kept a clandestine correspondence with a clerk at the Admiralty in London, knowing his letters were read by higher authorities: he hoped, in such way, to raise alarm in the government, but to no avail.[140]In February 1821, Napoleon's health began to fail rapidly, and on 3 May two British physicians, who had recently arrived, attended on him but could only recommend palliatives.[141] He died two days later, after confession, Extreme Unction and Viaticum in the presence of Father AngeVignali.[141] His last words were, "France, armée, têted'armée, Joséphine." ("France, army, head of the army, Joséphine.")[141]Napoleon's original death mask was created around 6 May, though it is not clear which doctor created it.[142][note 7] In his will, he had asked to be buried on the banks of the Seine, but the British governor said he should be buried on St. Helena, in the Valley of the Willows. Hudson Lowe insisted the inscription should read "Napoleon Bonaparte"; Montholon and Bertrand wanted the Imperial title "Napoleon" as royalty were signed by their first names only. As a result the tomb was left nameless.[141]Napoleon's tomb at Les Invalides"The Death of Napoleon"from the Memoirs of Bourrienne, 1831MENU0:0000:37:19 (full text)Problems playing this file? See media help.In 1840, Louis Philippe I obtained permission from the British to return Napoleon's remains to France. The remains were transported aboard the frigate Belle-Poule, which had been painted black for the occasion, and on 29 November she arrived in Cherbourg. The remains were transferred to the steamship Normandie, which transported them to Le Havre, up the Seine to Rouen and on to Paris.[144]On 15 December, a state funeral was held. The hearse proceeded from the Arc de Triomphe down the Champs-Élysées, across thePlace de la Concorde to the Esplanade des Invalides and then to the cupola in St Jérôme's Chapel, where it stayed until the tomb designed by Louis Visconti was completed. In 1861, Napoleon's remains were entombed in a porphyry sarcophagus in the crypt under the dome at Les Invalides.[144]Cause of deathNapoleon's physician, François Carlo Antommarchi, led the autopsy, which found the cause of death to be stomach cancer. Antommarchi did not, however, sign the official report.[145] Napoleon's father had died of stomach cancer, though this was seemingly unknown at the time of the autopsy.[146] Antommarchi found evidence of a stomach ulcer, and it was the most convenient explanation for the British who wanted to avoid criticism over their care of the emperor.[141]Napoléonsur son lit de mort (Napoleon on his death bed), by Horace Vernet, 1826In 1955, the diaries of Napoleon's valet, Louis Marchand, appeared in print. His description of Napoleon in the months before his death led StenForshufvud to put forward other causes for his death, including deliberate arsenic poisoning, in a 1961 paper in Nature.[147] Arsenic was used as a poison during the era because it was undetectable when administered over a long period. Forshufvud, in a 1978 book with Ben Weider, noted the emperor's body was found to be remarkably well-preserved when moved in 1840. Arsenic is a strong preservative, and therefore this supported the poisoning hypothesis. Forshufvud and Weider observed that Napoleon had attempted to quench abnormal thirst by drinking high levels of orgeat syrup that contained cyanide compounds in the almonds used for flavouring.[147]They maintained that the potassium tartrate used in his treatment prevented his stomach from expulsion of these compounds and that the thirst was a symptom of the poison. Their hypothesis was that the calomel given to Napoleon became an overdose, which killed him and left behind extensive tissue damage.[147] A 2007 article stated the type of arsenic found in Napoleon's hair shafts was mineral type, the most toxic, and according to toxicologist Patrick Kintz, this supported the conclusion his death was murder.[148]The wallpaper used in Longwood contained a high level of arsenic compound used for dye by British manufacturers. The adhesive, which in the cooler British environment was innocuous, may have grown mould in the more humid climate and emitted the poisonous gas arsine. This theory has been ruled out, as it does not explain the arsenic absorption patterns found in other analyses.[147]There have been modern studies which have supported the original autopsy finding.[148] Researchers, in a 2008 study, analysed samples of Napoleon's hair from throughout his life, and from his family and other contemporaries. All samples had high levels of arsenic, approximately 100 times higher than the current average. According to these researchers, Napoleon's body was already heavily contaminated with arsenic as a boy, and the high arsenic concentration in his hair was not caused by intentional poisoning; people were constantly exposed to arsenic from glues and dyes throughout their lives.[note 8] Studies published in 2007 and 2008 dismissed evidence of arsenic poisoning, and confirmed evidence of peptic ulcer and gastric cancer as the cause of death.[150]ReformsBonaparte instituted lasting reforms, including higher education, a tax code, road and sewer systems, and established the Banque de France (central bank). He negotiated theConcordat of 1801 with the Catholic Church, which sought to reconcile the mostly Catholic population to his regime. It was presented alongside the Organic Articles, which regulated public worship in France. Later that year, Bonaparte became President of the French Academy of Sciences and appointed Jean Baptiste Joseph Delambre its Permanent Secretary.[57]In May 1802, he instituted the Legion of Honour, a substitute for the old royalist decorations and orders of chivalry, to encourage civilian and military achievements; the order is still the highest decoration in France.[151] His powers were increased by the Constitution of the Year X including: Article 1. The French people name, and the Senate proclaims Napoleon-Bonaparte First Consul for Life.[152] After this he was generally referred to as Napoleon rather than Bonaparte.[23]Napoleon's set of civil laws, the Code Civil—now often known as the Napoleonic Code—was prepared by committees of legal experts under the supervision of Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacérès, the Second Consul. Napoleon participated actively in the sessions of the Council of State that revised the drafts. The development of the code was a fundamental change in the nature of the civil law legal system with its stress on clearly written and accessible law. Other codes ("Les cinq codes") were commissioned by Napoleon to codify criminal and commerce law; a Code of Criminal Instruction was published, which enacted rules of due process.[153] See Legacy.Napoleonic CodeMain article: Napoleonic CodeFirst page of the 1804 original edition of the Code CivilThe Napoleonic code was adopted throughout much of Europe, though only in the lands he conquered, and remained in force after Napoleon's defeat. Napoleon said: "My true glory is not to have won 40 battles...Waterloo will erase the memory of so many victories. ... But...what will live forever, is my Civil Code."[154] The Code still has importance today in a quarter of the world's jurisdictions including in Europe, the Americas and Africa.[155]Dieter Langewiesche described the code as a "revolutionary project" which spurred the development of bourgeois society in Germany by the extension of the right to own property and an acceleration towards the end of feudalism. Napoleon reorganised what had been the Holy Roman Empire, made up of more than a thousand entities, into a more streamlined forty-state Confederation of the Rhine; this provided the basis for the German Confederation and the unification of Germany in 1871.[156]The movement toward national unification in Italy was similarly precipitated by Napoleonic rule.[157] These changes contributed to the development of nationalism and the nation state.[158]Metric systemMain articles: History of the metric system, Mesuresusuelles, and Units of measurement in FranceThe official introduction of the metric system in September 1799 was unpopular in large sections of French society, and Napoleon's rule greatly aided adoption of the new standard across not only France but the French sphere of influence. Napoleon ultimately took a retrograde step in 1812 when he passed legislation to introduce the mesuresusuelles (traditional units of measurement) for retail trade[159]—a system of measure that resembled the pre-revolutionary units but were based on the kilogram and the metre; for example the livremetrique (metric pound) was 500 g[160] instead of 489.5 g—the value of the livre du roi (the king's pound).[161] Other units of measure were rounded in a similar manner. This however laid the foundations for the definitive introduction of the metric system across Europe in the middle of the 19th century.[162]ReligionsFurther information: Napoleon and the Catholic ChurchNapoleon's baptism took place in Ajaccio on 21 July 1771; he was piously raised and received a Christian education; however, his teachers failed to give faith to the young boy.[163]As an adult, Napoleon was described as a "deist with involuntary respect and fondness for Catholicism."[164] He never believed in a living God; Napoleon's deity was an absent and distant God,[163] but he pragmatically considered organised religions as key elements of social order,[163] and especially Catholicism, whose, according to him, "splendorous ceremonies and sublime moral better act over the imagination of the people than other religions".[163]Napoleon had a civil marriage with Joséphine de Beauharnais, without religious ceremony, on 9 March 1796. During the campaign in Egypt, Napoleon showed much tolerance towards religion for a revolutionary general, holding discussions with Muslim scholars and ordering religious celebrations, but General Dupuy, who accompanied Napoleon, revealed, shortly after Pope Pius VI's death, the political reasons for such behaviour: "We are fooling Egyptians with our pretended interest for their religion; neither Bonaparte nor we believe in this religion more than we did in Pius the Defunct's one".[note 9] In his memoirs, Bonaparte's secretary Bourienne wrote about Napoleon's religious interests in the same vein.[166]His religious opportunism is epitomized in his famous quote: "It is by making myself Catholic that I brought peace to Brittany and Vendée. It is by making myself Italian that I won minds in Italy. It is by making myself a Moslem that I established myself in Egypt. If I governed a nation of Jews, I should reestablish the Temple of Solomon."[167] However, according to Juan Cole, "Bonaparte's admiration for the Prophet Muhammad, in contrast, was genuine".[168]Napoleon was crowned Emperor Napoleon I on 2 December 1804 at Notre Dame de Paris by Pope Pius VII. On 1 April 1810, Napoleon religiously married the Austrian princessMarie Louise. During his brother's rule in Spain, he abolished the Spanish Inquisition in 1813. In a private discussion with general Gourgaud during his exile on Saint Helena, Napoleon expressed materialistic views on the origin of man,[note 10]and doubted the divinity of Jesus, stating that it is absurd to believe that Socrates, Plato, Muhammad and theAnglicans should be damned for not being Roman Catholics.[note 11] He also said to Gourgaud in 1817 "I like the Mohammedan religion best. It has fewer incredible things in it than ours."[171] and that "the Mohammedan religion is the finest of all".[172] However, Napoleon was anointed by a priest before his death.[173]ConcordatFurther information: Concordat of 1801Leaders of the Catholic Church taking the civil oath required by the ConcordatSeeking national reconciliation between revolutionaries and Catholics, the Concordat of 1801 was signed on 15 July 1801 between Napoleon and Pope Pius VII. It solidified the Roman Catholic Church as the majority church of France and brought back most of its civil status.During the French Revolution, the National Assembly had taken Church properties and issued the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, which made the Church a department of the State, removing it from the authority of the Pope. This caused hostility among the Vendeanstowards the change in the relationship between the Catholic Church and the French government. Subsequent laws abolished the traditional Gregorian calendar and Christian holidays.While the Concordat restored some ties to the papacy, it was largely in favor of the state; the balance of church-state relations had tilted firmly in Napoleon's favour. Now, Napoleon could win favor with the Catholics within France while also controlling Rome in a political sense. Napoleon once told his brother Lucien in April 1801, "Skillful conquerors have not got entangled with priests. They can both contain them and use them."[174] As a part of the Concordat, he presented another set of laws called the Organic Articles.Religious emancipationFurther information: Napoleon and the JewsNapoleon emancipated Jews, as well as Protestants in Catholic countries and Catholics in Protestant countries, from laws which restricted them to ghettos, and he expanded their rights to property, worship, and careers. Despite the anti-semitic reaction to Napoleon's policies from foreign governments and within France, he believed emancipation would benefit France by attracting Jews to the country given the restrictions they faced elsewhere.[175]He stated, "I will never accept any proposals that will obligate the Jewish people to leave France, because to me the Jews are the same as any other citizen in our country. It takes weakness to chase them out of the country, but it takes strength to assimilate them."[176] He was seen as so favourable to the Jews that the Russian Orthodox Church formally condemned him as "Antichrist and the Enemy of God".[177]PersonalityAll historians agree that Napoleon's remarkable personality was one key to his influence. Although not physically imposing, in one-on-one situations he immediately had a hypnotic impact on people and seemingly bent the strongest leaders to his will.[178] Second, his intellectual powers were unrivaled.[179] He had a photographic memory for facts, people, events, numbers, military units, and maps. He devoured statistical information and reports, memorized maps, and had a perfect recall of a fantastic stock of information. He understood military technology, but was not an innovator in that regard.[180] He was an innovator in using the financial, bureaucratic, and diplomatic resources of France. He could instantly organize and integrate all that information, generating brilliant insights on complex situations. He could organize his own thoughts and rapidly dictate a series of complex commands to all his subordinates, keeping in mind where each major unit was expected to be at every future point, and like a chess master, "seeing" the best plays many moves ahead. Combined with his inexhaustible energy, he kept relays of staff and secretaries at work. Unlike many generals, Napoleon did not turn to history to ask what Hannibal orAlexander or whomever did in a similar situation. Critics said he won many battles simply because of luck; Napoleon responded, "Give me lucky generals," aware that "luck" comes to leaders who recognize opportunity, and seize it.[181] After 1812, Napoleon seems to have lost his old verve. On the great Russian campaign of 1812, with crisis after crisis at hand, he rarely rose to the occasion. After that débâcle, compatriots noticed a loss of the old flair. Some historians have suggested a physical deterioration, but others note that an impaired Napoleon was still a brilliant general.[179]In terms of impact on events, it was more than Napoleon's personality that took effect. He chose outstanding generals, and stood by them. He reorganized France itself to supply the men and money needed for great wars.[182] Above all he inspired his men—Wellington said his presence on the battlefield was worth 40,000 soldiers,[183] for he inspired confidence from privates to field marshals. The force of his personalities neutralized material difficulties as his soldiers fought with the confidence that with Napoleon in charge they would surely win.[184]ImageFurther information: Cultural depictions of NapoleonNapoleon is often represented in his green colonel uniform of theChasseur à Cheval, with a largebicorne and a hand-in-waistcoatgesture.Napoleon has become a worldwide cultural icon who symbolises military genius and political power. Martin van Creveld described him as "the most competent human being who ever lived".[185] Since his death, many towns, streets, ships, and even cartoon characters have been named after him. He has been portrayed in hundreds of films and discussed in hundreds of thousands of books and articles.[186]During the Napoleonic Wars he was taken seriously by the British press as a dangerous tyrant, poised to invade. He was often referred to by the British as Boney. A nursery rhyme warned children that Bonaparte ravenously ate naughty people; the "bogeyman".[187] The British Tory press sometimes depicted Napoleon as much smaller than average height, and this image persists. Confusion about his height also results from the difference between the French pouce and British inch—2.71 and 2.54 cm, respectively; he was about 1.7 m (5'7") tall, above average height for the period.[note 12][189]In 1908 Alfred Adler, a psychologist, cited Napoleon to describe an inferiority complex in which short people adopt an over-aggressive behaviour to compensate for lack of height; this inspired the term Napoleon complex.[190] The stock character of Napoleon is a comically short "petty tyrant" and this has become a cliché in popular culture. He is often portrayed wearing a large bicorne hat with a hand-in-waistcoat gesture—a reference to the painting produced in 1812 by Jacques-Louis David.[191]LegacyWarfareFurther information: Napoleonic weaponry and warfare and Military career of Napoleon BonaparteStatue in Cherbourg-Octevilleunveiled by Napoleon III in 1858. Napoleon I strengthened the town's defences to prevent British naval incursions.In the field of military organisation, Napoleon borrowed from previous theorists such as Jacques Antoine Hippolyte, Comte de Guibert, and from the reforms of preceding French governments, and then developed much of what was already in place. He continued the policy, which emerged from the Revolution, of promotion based primarily on merit.[192]Corps replaced divisions as the largest army units, mobile artillery was integrated into reserve batteries, the staff system became more fluid and cavalry returned as an important formation in French military doctrine. These methods are now referred to as essential features of Napoleonic warfare.[192] Though he consolidated the practice of modern conscription introduced by the Directory, one of the restored monarchy's first acts was to end it.[193]His opponents learned from Napoleon's innovations. The increased importance of artillery after 1807 stemmed from his creation of a highly mobile artillery force, the growth in artillery numbers, and changes in artillery practices. As a result of these factors, Napoleon, rather than relying on infantry to wear away the enemy's defenses, now could use massed artillery as a spearhead to pound a break in the enemy's line that was then exploited by supporting infantry and cavalry. McConachy rejects the alternative theory that growing reliance on artillery by the French army beginning in 1807 was an outgrowth of the declining quality of the French infantry and, later, France's inferiority in cavalry numbers.[194] Weapons and other kinds of military technology remained largely static through the Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras, but 18th-century operational mobility underwent significant change.[195]Napoleon's biggest influence was in the conduct of warfare. Antoine-Henri Jomini explained Napoleon's methods in a widely used textbook that influenced all European and American armies.[196] Napoleon was regarded by the influential military theorist Carl von Clausewitz as a genius in the operational art of war, and historians rank him as a great military commander.[197] Wellington, when asked who was the greatest general of the day, answered: "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon."[198]Under Napoleon, a new emphasis towards the destruction, not just outmanoeuvring, of enemy armies emerged. Invasions of enemy territory occurred over broader fronts which made wars costlier and more decisive. The political impact of war increased significantly; defeat for a European power meant more than the loss of isolated enclaves. Near-Carthaginian peaces intertwined whole national efforts, intensifying the Revolutionary phenomenon of total war.[199]BonapartismMain article: BonapartismIn French political history, Bonapartism has two meanings. The term can refer to people who restored the French Empire under the House of Bonaparte including Napoleon's Corsican family and his nephew Louis. Napoleon left a Bonapartist dynasty which ruled France again; Louis became Napoleon III, Emperor of the Second French Empire and was the first President of France. In a wider sense, Bonapartism refers to a broad centrist or center-right political movement that advocates the idea of a strong and centralised state, based on populism.[200]CriticismThe Third of May 1808 by Francisco Goya, showing Spanish resisters being executed by Napoleon's troops.Napoleon ended lawlessness and disorder in post-Revolutionary France.[201] He was, however, considered a tyrant and usurper by his opponents.[202] His critics charge that he was not significantly troubled when faced with the prospect of war and death for thousands, turned his search for undisputed rule into a series of conflicts throughout Europe and ignored treaties and conventions alike. His role in the Haitian Revolution and decision to reinstate slavery in France's oversea colonies are controversial and have an impact on his reputation.[203]Napoleon institutionalised plunder of conquered territories: French museums contain art stolen by Napoleon's forces from across Europe. Artefacts were brought to the Musée du Louvre for a grand central museum; his example would later serve as inspiration for more notorious imitators.[204] He was compared to Adolf Hitler most famously by the historian Pieter Geyl in 1947.[205] David G. Chandler, a historian of Napoleonic warfare, wrote that, "Nothing could be more degrading to the former and more flattering to the latter."[206]Critics argue Napoleon's true legacy must reflect the loss of status for France and needless deaths brought by his rule: historian Victor Davis Hanson writes, "After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost."[207] McLynn notes that, "He can be viewed as the man who set back European economic life for a generation by the dislocating impact of his wars."[202] However, Vincent Cronin replies that such criticism relies on the flawed premise that Napoleon was responsible for the wars which bear his name, when in fact France was the victim of a series of coalitions which aimed to destroy the ideals of the Revolution.[208]Propaganda and memoryMain article: Napoleonic propagandaNapoleon Crossing the Alps, romanticversion by Jacques-Louis David in 1805Bonaparte Crossing the Alps, realistversion by Paul Delaroche in 1848Napoleon's masterful use of propaganda contributed to his rise to power, legitimated his regime, and established his image for posterity. Strict censorship, controlling aspects of the press, books, theater, and art, was only part of his propaganda scheme, aimed at portraying him as bringing desperately wanted peace and stability to France. The propagandistic rhetoric changed in relation to events and the atmosphere of Napoleon's reign, focusing first on his role as a general in the army and identification as a soldier, and moving to his role as emperor and a civil leader. Specifically targeting his civilian audience, Napoleon fostered an important, though uneasy, relationship with the contemporary art community, taking an active role in commissioning and controlling different forms of art production to suit his propaganda goals.[209]Hazareesingh (2004) explores how Napoleon's image and memory are best understood when considered within the socio-political context. They played a key role in collective political defiance of the Bourbon restoration monarchy in 1815–30. People from all walks of life and all areas of France, particularly Napoleonic veterans, drew on the Napoleonic legacy and its connections with the ideals of the 1789 revolution.[210]Widespread rumors of Napoleon's return from St. Helena and Napoleon as an inspiration for patriotism, individual and collective liberties, and political mobilization manifested themselves in seditious materials, notably displaying the tricolor and rosettes, and subversive activities celebrating anniversaries of Napoleon's life and reign and disrupting royal celebrations, and demonstrated the prevailing and successful goal of the varied supporters of Napoleon to constantly destabilize the Bourbon regime.[210]Datta (2005) shows that, following the collapse of militaristic Boulangism in the late 1880s, the Napoleonic legend was divorced from party politics and revived in popular culture. Concentrating on two plays and two novels from the period—Victorien Sardou's Madame Sans-Gêne (1893), Maurice Barrès's Les Déracinés (1897), Edmond Rostand's L'Aiglon(1900), and André de Lorde and Gyp's Napoléonette (1913) Datta examines how writers and critics of the Belle Epoque exploited the Napoleonic legend for diverse political and cultural ends.[211]Reduced to a minor character, the new fictional Napoleon was not a world historical figure but an intimate one fashioned by each individual's needs and consumed as popular entertainment. In their attempts to represent the emperor as a figure of national unity, proponents and detractors of the Third Republic used the legend as a vehicle for exploring anxieties about gender and fears about the processes of democratization that accompanied this new era of mass politics and culture.[211]International Napoleonic Congresses are held regularly and include participation by members of the French and American military, French politicians and scholars from different countries.[212]In January 2012, the mayor of Montereau-Fault-Yonne, near Paris—the site of a late victory of Napoleon—proposed development of a commemorative theme park at a projected cost of 200 million euros.[213]Legacy outside FranceBas-relief of Napoleon I in the chamber of the United States House of RepresentativesNapoleon was responsible for overthrowing many Ancien Régime–type monarchies in Europe and spreading the official values of the French Revolution to other countries. In particular, Napoleon's French nationalism had the effect of influencing the development of nationalism elsewhere—often inadvertently. German nationalism of Fichte rose to challenge Napoleon's conquest of Germany. The Napoleonic invasion of the Iberian peninsula not only greatly fuelled Spanish and Portuguese national sentiment; it also helped provoke the Spanish American wars of independence. The Napoleonic ideal of a liberal/bourgeois empire would influence the First Mexican Empire and the Empire of Brazil. Napoleon also inflamed Italian nationalism, famously providing the design for the flag of Italy on the basis of the French tricolour.The Napoleonic Code is a codification of law including civil, family and criminal law that Napoleon imposed on French-conquered territories. After the fall of Napoleon, not only was Napoleonic Code retained by many such countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, parts of Italy and Germany, but has also been used as the basis of certain parts of law outside Europe including the Dominican Republic, the US state of Louisianaand the Canadian province of Quebec.[214]The memory of Napoleon in Poland is highly favorable, for his support for independence and opposition to Russia, his legal code, the abolition of serfdom, and the introduction of modern middle class bureaucracies.[215]A number of leaders have been influenced by Napoleon. Muhammad Ali of Egypt sought alliance with Napoleon's France and sought to modernize Egypt along French governmental lines. In the 20th century, Adolf Hitler admired and emulated Napoleon as a leader and empire-builder, Hitler paid hommage to Napoleon by visiting his tomb after Germany occupied France in World War II.Marriages and childrenNapoleon's first wife, Joséphine, Empress of the FrenchNapoleon's second wife, Marie-Louise, Empress of the FrenchNapoleon married Joséphine de Beauharnais in 1796, when he was 26; she was a 32-year-old widow whose first husband had been executed during the Revolution. Until she met Bonaparte, she had been known as "Rose", a name which he disliked. He called her "Joséphine" instead, and she went by this name henceforth. Bonaparte often sent her love letters while on his campaigns.[216] He formally adopted her son Eugène and cousin Stéphanie and arranged dynastic marriages for them. Joséphine had her daughter Hortense marry Napoleon's brother Louis.[217]Joséphine had lovers, including a Hussar lieutenant, Hippolyte Charles, during Napoleon's Italian campaign.[218]Napoleon learnt the full extent of her affair with Charles while in Egypt, and a letter he wrote to his brother Joseph regarding the subject was intercepted by the British. The letter appeared in the London and Paris presses, much to Napoleon's embarrassment. Napoleon had his own affairs too: during the Egyptian campaign he took Pauline BellisleFoures, the wife of a junior officer, as his mistress. She became known as "Cleopatra" after the Ancient Egyptian ruler.[219][note 13]While Napoleon's mistresses had children by him, Joséphine did not produce an heir, possibly because of either the stresses of her imprisonment during the Reign of Terror or an abortion she may have had in her 20s.[221]Napoleon ultimately chose divorce so he could remarry in search of an heir. In March 1810, he married Marie Louise, Archduchess of Austria, and a great niece of Marie Antoinette by proxy; thus he had married into a German royal and imperial family.[222]They remained married until his death, though she did not join him in exile on Elba and thereafter never saw her husband again. The couple had one child, Napoleon Francis Joseph Charles (1811–1832), known from birth as the King of Rome. He became Napoleon II in 1814 and reigned for only two weeks. He was awarded the title of the Duke of Reichstadt in 1818 and died of tuberculosis aged 21, with no children.[222]Napoleon acknowledged one illegitimate son: Charles Léon (1806–1881) by EléonoreDenuelle de La Plaigne,.[223][223] He may have had further unacknowledged illegitimate offspring as well, such as Karl Eugin von Mühlfeld by Victoria Kraus;[101] Hélène Napoleone Bonaparte (1816–1910) by Albine de Montholon; and Jules Barthélemy-Saint-Hilaire, whose mother remains unknown.[224] In addition; he was widely assumed to be the biological father of Count Alexandre Joseph Colonna-Walewski (1810–1868) by Countess Marie Walewska; who was, however, acknowledged by his mother's husband as his son, and he was not acknowledged by Napoleon.Titles, styles, honours and armsEmperor Napoleon I of FranceHouse of BonapartePolitical officesPreceded byFrench DirectoryProvisional Consul of France11 November – 12 December 1799Served alongside: Roger Ducos and Emmanuel Joseph SieyèsBecame ConsulNew titleConsulate createdFirst Consul of France12 December 1799 – 18 May 1804Served alongside: Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacérès (Second Consul)Charles-François Lebrun (Third Consul)Became EmperorRegnaltitlesVacantFrench RevolutionTitle last held byLouis XVI of Franceas King of the FrenchEmperor of the French18 May 1804 – 11 April 1814Succeeded byLouis XVIII of Franceas King of France and NavarreVacantTitle last held byCharles V, Holy Roman Emperoras last crowned monarch, 1530King of Italy17 March 1805 – 11 April 1814VacantTitle next held byVictor Emmanuel II of SavoyPreceded byLouis XVIII of Franceas King of France and NavarreEmperor of the French20 March – 22 June 1815Succeeded byLouis XVIII of Franceas King of France and Navarre(Napoleon II according to his will only)VacantTitle last held byLouis XVI of FranceCo-Prince of Andorra1806 – 11 April 1814Succeeded byLouis XVIII of FranceNew titleState createdProtector of the Confederation of the Rhine12 July 1806 – 19 October 1813Rhine Confederation dissolvedsuccessive ruler:Francis II, Holy Roman Emperoras President of the German ConfederationTitles in pretenceNew title— TITULAR —Emperor of the French11 April 1814 – 20 March 1815VacantTitle next held byNapoleon IITitles and stylesMonarchical styles ofNapoleon I of FranceReferencestyleHis Imperial MajestySpokenstyleYour Imperial MajestyAlternativestyleMyLordMonarchical styles ofNapoleon I of ItalyReferencestyleHis Royal MajestySpokenstyleYour Royal MajestyAlternativestyleMy Lord18 May 1804 – 11 April 1814: His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of the French17 March 1805 – 11 April 1814: His Imperial and Royal Majesty the Emperor of the French, King of Italy20 March 1815 – 22 June 1815: His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of the FrenchFull titles1804–1805His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I, By the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Republic, Emperor of the French.1805–1806His Imperial and Royal Majesty Napoleon I, By the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Republic, Emperor of the French, King ofItaly.1806–1809His Imperial and Royal Majesty Napoleon I, By the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Republic, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine.1809–1814His Imperial and Royal Majesty Napoleon I, By the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Republic, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, Mediator of the Helvetic Confederation.1815His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I, By the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Republic, Emperor of the French.Ancestry 16. Giuseppe Maria Buonaparte(1663–1703) 8. Sebastiano Nicola Buonaparte(1683–1720/60) 17. Maria Colonna Bozzi(1668–1704) 4. Giuseppe Maria Buonaparte(1713–1763) 18. Carlo Tusoli 9. Maria Anna Tusoli(1690–1760) 19. Isabella 2. Carlo Maria Buonaparte(1746–1785) 10. Giuseppe Maria Paravicini 5. Maria SaveriaParavicini(1715–bef. 1750) 22. Angelo AgostinoSalineri 11. Maria Angela Salineri 23. FrancettaMerezano 1. Napoleon I, Emperor of the French and King of Italy(1769–1821) 24. Giovanni GirolamoRamolino(1645–?) 12. Giovanni AgostinoRamolino 25. Maria LaetitiaBoggiano 6. Giovanni Geronimo Ramolino (1723–1755) 26. Andrea Peri(1669–?) 13. Angela Maria Peri 27. Maria Maddalena Colonna d'Istria 3. Maria LetiziaRamolino(1750–1836) 28. Giovanni Antonio Pietrasanta 14. Giuseppe Maria Pietrasanta 29. Paola BrigidaSorba 7. Angela Maria Pietrasanta (1725–1790) 15. Maria GiuseppaMalerba NotesJump up^ His name was also spelled as Nabulione, Nabulio, Napolionne, and Napulione.[4]Jump up^ Aside from his name, there does not appear to be a connection between him andNapoleon's theorem.[19]Jump up^ He was mainly referred to as Bonaparte until he became First Consul for life.[23]Jump up^ This is depicted in Bonaparte Crossing the Alps by Hippolyte Delaroche and in Jacques-Louis David's imperial Napoleon Crossing the Alps, he is less realistically portrayed on a charger in the latter work.[72]Jump up^ Napoleon gave the pope a tiara following the ceremony, now referred to as theNapoleon Tiara.Jump up^ A custom in which householders place candles in street-facing windows to herald good news.[135]Jump up^ It was customary to cast a death mask or mold of a leader. Four genuine death masks of Napoleon are known to exist: one in The Cabildo, a state museum located in New Orleans, one in a Liverpool museum, another in Havana and one in the library of the University of North Carolina.[143]Jump up^ The body can tolerate large doses of arsenic if ingested regularly, and arsenic was a fashionable cure-all.[149]Jump up^ "Nous trompons les Égyptiens par notresimiliattachement à leur religion, à laquelle Bonaparte et nous ne croyons pas plus qu'àcelle de Pie le défunt."[165]Jump up^ "I think the matter that made man was slime, warmed by the sun and vivified by electric fluids. What are animals —an ox, for example— but organized matter? Well, when we see that our physical frame resembles theirs, may we not believe that we are only better organized matter... The most simple idea consists in worshiping the sun, which gives life to everything. I repeat, I think man was created in an atmosphere warmed by the sun, and that after a certain time this productive power ceased." [169]Jump up^ "I do not think Jesus Christ ever existed. I would believe in the Christian religion if it dated from the beginning of the world. That Socrates, Plato, the Mohammedan, and all the English should be damned is too absurd. Jesus was probably put to death, like many other fanatics who proclaimed themselves to be prophets or the expected Messiah. Every year there were many of these men."[170]Jump up^ Napoleon's height was 5 ft 2 French inches according to Antommarchi at Napoleon's autopsy and British sources put his height at 5 foot and 7 British inches: both equivalent to 1.7 m.[188] Napoleon surrounded himself with tall bodyguards and had a nickname of le petit caporal which was an affectionate term that reflected his reported camaraderie with his soldiers rather than his height.Jump up^ One night, during an illicit liaison with the actress Marguerite George, Napoleon had a major fit. This and other more minor attacks have led historians to debate whether he had epilepsy and, if so, to what extent
Leadership StylesLeadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. Kurt Lewin (1939) led a group of researchers to identify different styles of leadership. This early study has been very influential and established three major leadership styles: (Lewin, LIippit, White 1939, U.S. Army Handbook, 1973):autocratic or authoritarianparticipative or democraticdelegative or laissez-fairAlthough good leaders use all three styles, with one of them normally dominant, bad leaders tend to stick with one style (normally autocratic).Authoritarian (autocratic)I want both of you to. . .This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. Some of the appropriate conditions to use it is when you have all the information to solve the problem, you are short on time, and your employees are well motivated.Some people tend to think of this style as a vehicle for yelling, using demeaning language, and leading by threats and abusing their power. This is not the authoritarian style, rather it is an abusive, unprofessional style called “bossing people around.” It has no place in a leader's repertoire.The authoritarian style should normally only be used on rare occasions. If you have the time and want to gain more commitment and motivation from your employees, then you should use the participative style.Participative (democratic)Let's work together to solve this. . .This style involves the leader including one or more employees in the decision making process (determining what to do and how to do it). However, the leader maintains the final decision making authority. Using this style is not a sign of weakness, rather it is a sign of strength that your employees will respect.This is normally used when you have part of the information, and your employees have other parts. A leader is not expected to know everything—this is why you employ knowledgeable and skillful employees. Using this style is of mutual benefit as it allows them to become part of the team and allows you to make better decisions.Delegative (laissez faire)You two take care of the problem while I go. . .In this style, the leader allows the employees to make the decisions. However, the leader is still responsible for the decisions that are made. This is used when employees are able to analyze the situation and determine what needs to be done and how to do it. You cannot do everything! You must set priorities and delegate certain tasks.This is not a style to use so that you can blame others when things go wrong, rather this is a style to be used when you fully trust and confidence in the people below you. Do not be afraid to use it, however, use it wisely!NOTE: Laissez Faire (or lais·ser faire) is the noninterference in the affairs of others. [French : laissez, second person pl. imperative of laisser, to let, allow + faire, to do.]ForcesA good leader uses all three styles, depending on what forces are involved between the followers, the leader, and the situation. Some examples include:Using an authoritarian style on a new employee who is just learning the job. The leader is competent and a good coach. The employee is motivated to learn a new skill. The situation is a new environment for the employee.Using a participative style with a team of workers who know their job. The leader knows the problem, but does not have all the information. The employees know their jobs and want to become part of the team.Using a delegative style with a worker who knows more about the job than you. You cannot do everything and the employee needs to take ownership of her job! In addition, this allows you to be at other places, doing other things.Using all three: Telling your employees that a procedure is not working correctly and a new one must be established (authoritarian). Asking for their ideas and input on creating a new procedure (participative). Delegating tasks in order to implement the new procedure (delegative or laissez faire).Forces that influence the style to be used included:How much time is available.Are relationships based on respect and trust or on disrespect?Who has the information—you, your employees, or both?How well your employees are trained and how well you know the task.Internal conflicts.Stress levels.Type of task. Is it structured, unstructured, complicated, or simple?Laws or established procedures such as OSHA or training plans.Positive and Negative ApproachesThere is a difference in ways leaders approach their employee. Positive leaders use rewards, such as education, independence, etc. to motivate employees. While negative employers emphasize penalties. While the negative approach has a place in a leader's repertoire of tools, it must be used carefully due to its high cost on the human spirit.Negative leaders act domineering and superior with people. They believe the only way to get things done is through penalties, such as loss of job, days off without pay, reprimanding employees in front of others, etc. They believe their authority is increased by frightening everyone into higher levels of productivity. Yet what always happens when this approach is used wrongly is that morale falls; which of course leads to lower productivity.Also note that most leaders do not strictly use one or another, but are somewhere on a continuum ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative. People who continuously work out of the negative are bosses while those who primarily work out of the positive are considered real leaders.Use of Consideration and StructureTwo other approaches that leaders use are:Consideration (employee orientation) — leaders are concerned about the human needs of their employees. They build teamwork, help employees with their problems, and provide psychological support.Structure (task orientation) — leaders believe that they get results by consistently keeping people busy and urging them to produce.There is evidence that leaders who are considerate in their leadership style are higher performers and are more satisfied with their job (Schriesheim, 1982).Also notice that consideration and structure are independent of each other, thus they should not be viewed on a continuum. For example, a leader who becomes more considerate, does not necessarily mean that she has become less structured.See Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid as it is also based on this concept.PaternalismPaternalism has at times been equated with leadership styles. Yet most definitions of leadership normally state or imply that one of the actions within leadership is that of influencing. For example, the Army uses the followingdefinition:Leadership is influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.The Army further goes on by defining “influence” as:A means of getting people to do what you want them to do. It is the means or method to achieve two ends: operating and improving. But there is more to influencing than simply passing along orders. The example you set is just as important as the words you speak. And you set an example—good or bad—with every action you take and word you utter, on or off duty. Through your words and example, you must communicate purpose, direction, and motivation.While “paternalism” is defined as (Webster):A system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as individuals as well as in their relationships to authority and to each other.Thus paternalism supplies needs for those under its protection or control, while leadership gets things done. The first is directed inwards, while the latter is directed outwards.GeertHofstede (1997) studied culture within organizations. Part of his study was on the dependence relationship orPower Difference—the extent to which the less powerful members of an organization expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Hofstede gave this story to illustrate this Power Difference:The last revolution in Sweden disposed of King Gustav IV, whom they considered incompetent, and surprising invited Jean Baptise Bernadotte, a French general who served under Napoleon, to become their new King. He accepted and became King Charles XIV. Soon afterward he needed to address the Swedish Parliament. Wanting to be accepted, he tried to do the speech in their language. His broken language amused the Swedes so much that they roared with laughter. The Frenchman was so upset that he never tried to speak Swedish again.Bernadotte was a victim of culture shock—never in his French upbringing and military career had he experienced subordinates who laughed at the mistakes of their superior. This story has a happy ending as he was considered very good and ruled the country as a highly respected constitutional monarch until 1844. (His descendants still occupy the Swedish throne.)Sweden differs from France in the way its society handles inequality (those in charge and the followers). To measure inequality or Power Difference, Hofstede studied three survey questions from a larger survey that both factored and carried the same weight:Frequency of employees being afraid to express disagreement with their managers.Subordinates' perception of their boss's actual decision making style (paternalistic style was one choice).Subordinates' preference for their boss's decision-making style (again, paternalistic style was one choice).He developed a Power Difference Index (PDI) for the 53 countries that took the survey. Their scores range from 11 to 104. The higher the number a country received, the more autocratic and/or paternalistic the leadership, which of course relates to employees being more afraid or unwilling to disagree with their bosses. While lower numbers mean a more consultative style of leadership is used, which translates to employees who are not as afraid of their bosses.For example, Malaysia has the highest PDI score, being 104, while Austria has the lowest with 11. And of course, as the story above illustrates, Sweden has a relative low score of 31, while France has a PDI of 68. The USA's is 40. Note that these scores are relative, not absolute, in that relativism affirms that one culture has no absolute criteria for judging activities of another culture as “low” or “noble”.Keeping the above in mind, it seems that some picture paternalistic behavior as almost a barbaric way of getting things accomplished. Yet, leadership is all about getting things done for the organization. And in some situations, a paternalistic style of decision-making might be required; indeed, in some cultures and individuals, it may also be expected by not only those in charge, but also the followers. That is what makes leadership styles quite interesting—they basically run along the same continuum as Hofstede's PDI, ranging from paternalistic to consultative styles of decision making. This allows a wide range of individual behaviors to be dealt with, ranging from beginners to peak performers. In addition, it accounts for the fact that not everyone is the same.However, when paternalistic or autocratic styles are relied upon too much and the employees are ready and/or willing to react to a more consultative type of leadership style, then it normally becomes quite damaging to the performance of the organization.Next StepsActivity: How to determine your leadership style — Leadership Style SurveyGrowing a TeamMain Leadership MenuReferencesHofstede, Geert (1997). Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind new York: McGraw-Hill.Lewin, K., LIippit, R. and White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-301Newstrom, John W. & Davis, Keith (1993). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill.Schriesheim, Chester A. The Great High Consideration: High Initiating Structure Leadership Myth: Evidence on its Generalizability. The Journal of Social Psychology, April 1982, 116, pp. 221-228.ReturnU.S. Army Handbook (1973). Military Leadership.
