Criticism is the practice of judging the merits and faults of something or someone in an intelligible (or articulate) way.

The judger is called "the critic".

To engage in criticism is "to criticize".

One specific item of criticism is called "a criticism".

This article provides information only about ''basic'' kinds of criticism, which are used ''generally'' by almost everybody at one time or another (for more specific types or areas of criticism, see the list at the bottom of this page, the (incomplete) category list for "criticism", and the criticism of (disambiguation) page).

Criticism can be:

directed toward a person or an animal; at a group, authority or organization; at a specific behaviour; or at an object of some kind (an idea, a relationship, a condition, a process, or a thing).

personal (delivered directly from one person to another, in a personal capacity), or impersonal (expressing the view of an organization, and not aimed at anyone personally).

highly specific and detailed, or very abstract and general.

verbal (expressed in language) or non-verbal (expressed symbolically, or expressed through an action or a way of behaving).

explicit (the criticism is clearly stated) or implicit (a criticism is implied by what is being said, but it is not stated openly).

the result of critical thinking or spontaneous impulse.

To criticize does not necessarily imply "to find fault", but the word is often taken to mean the simple expression of an objection against prejudice, or a disapproval. Often criticism involves active disagreement, but it may only mean "taking sides". There may not be any fighting involved.

Criticism is often presented as something unpleasant, but it need not be. It could be friendly criticism, amicably discussed, and some people find great pleasure in criticism ("keeping people sharp", "providing the critical edge"). The Pulitzer Prize for Criticism has been presented since 1970 to a newspaper writer who has demonstrated 'distinguished criticism'.

Another meaning of criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature, artwork, film, and social trends (see the article links below). The goal of this type of criticism is to understand the possible meanings of cultural phenomena, and the context in which they take shape. In so doing, the attempt is often made to evaluate how cultural productions relate to other cultural productions, and what their place is within a particular genre, or a particular cultural tradition.

Criticism as an evaluative or corrective exercise can occur in any area of human life. Criticism can therefore take many different forms. How exactly people go about criticizing, can vary a great deal. In specific areas of human endeavour, the form of criticism can be highly specialized and technical; it often requires professional knowledge to understand the criticism.

Etymology

This section is about the origin and evolution of the meanings of the expression "criticism".

Early English meaning

The English word criticism is derived from the French ''critique'', which dates back to at least the 14th century.

The words "critic" and "critical" existed in the English language from the mid-16th century, and the word "criticism" first made its appearance in English in the early 17th century.

In turn, the French expression ''critique'' has roots in Latin ("''criticus''" - a judger, decider, or critic), and, even earlier, classical Greek language ("''kritos''" means judge, and "''kritikos''" means able to make judgements, or the critic). Related Greek terms are ''krinein'' (separating out, deciding), ''krei-'' (to sieve, discriminate, or distinguish) and ''krisis'' (literally, the judgement, the result of a trial, or a selection resulting from a choice or decision). ''Crito'' is also the name of a pupil and friend of the Greek philosopher Socrates, as well as the name of an imaginary dialogue about justice written by the philosopher Plato in the context of the execution of Socrates.

The early English meaning of criticism was primarily that of "fault-finding" and that of judging literature. In the course of the 17th century, it acquired the more general sense of censure, as well as the more specialized meaning of the "discernment of taste", i.e. the art of estimating the qualities and character of literary or artistic works, implicitly from the point of view of a consumer.

To be critical meant, positively, to have good, informed judgement about matters of culture (to be cultivated, to be a man or woman of distinction), but negatively it could also refer to the (unreasonable) rejection or (unfair) treatment of some outside group ("to be critical of them"). Derivatively, "a criticism" also referred to a nice point or a distinction, a tiny detail, a pedantic nicety, a subtlety, or a quibble (the sense of what today is called a "minor criticism"). Often criticism was governed by very strict cultural rules of politeness, propriety and decency, and there could be immediate penalties if the wrong words were said or written down (in 17th century England, more than half of men and about three-quarters of women could not read or write).

In the 19th century, criticism also gained the philosophical meaning of "a critical examination of the faculty of knowledge", particularly in the sense used by Immanuel Kant. Such criticism was carried out mainly by academic authorities, businessmen and men of property with the leisure to devote themselves to the pursuit of knowledge.

20th century

In the 20th century, all these meanings continued, but criticism acquired the more general connotation of voicing an objection, or of appraising the pro's and con's of something.

The shape and meanings of criticism were influenced very considerably by wars (including two world wars), which were occurring almost continuously somewhere in the world.

With the growth of specializations in the division of labour, and the growth of tertiary education, innumerable different branches of criticism emerged with their own rules and specialized technical meanings.

Philosophers such as Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos have popularized the idea, that criticism is a ''normal'' part of scientific activity. Relatedly, "scientific criticism" has become a standard expression, just as much as "literary criticism".

Gradually it was accepted more, that criticism is a ''normal'' process in a democratic society, rather than a sign of inadequacy, or something that should be strictly controlled or repressed.

From the 1970s onward, under the influence of neo-Marxism, critical theory and Michel Foucault, it became fashionable in the English-speaking academic social sciences and humanities to use the French word "''critique''", instead of the ordinary "criticism". The suggestion is, that there is a ''difference'' between the two terms, but what exactly it is, is often not altogether clear. Often the connotation is, that if a deliberation is a "critique" and not just a "criticism", then there is "a lot of extra thought and profound meaning" behind what is being said. A "critique" in the modern sense is normally understood as a ''systematic'' criticism, a critical essay, or the critical appraisal of a discourse (or parts of a discourse). Thus, many academic papers came to be titled or subtitled "a critique". From the 1970s, English-speaking academics and journalists also began to use the word "critique" not only as a noun, but as a verb (e.g. "I have critiqued the idea", instead of "I have criticized the idea"). What is often implied is, that "critiqueing" goes deeper into the issue, or is more complete, than "criticizing", possibly because the specialist criteria of a particular discipline are being applied.

21st century

From the 1990s, the popular meanings of the word criticism have started to evolve more strongly toward "having an objection", "expressing dissent", "stating a dislike", "wanting to dissociate from something", or "rejecting something" ("If you liked it, you would not be criticizing it"). In the contemporary sense, criticism is often more the expression of an attitude, where the object of criticism may only be vaguely defined.

In general, there is less money in literary criticism, while it has become easier for anyone to publish anything at a very low cost on the Internet. People's attention span is much shorter, they don't cope very easily with lengthy criticisms and explanations.

Professionally, "what it means to criticize" has become a much more ''specialized'' and ''technical'' matter, where "inside knowledge" is required to understand the criticism truly; this development is linked to the circumstance, that the ''right'' to criticize, or the ''propriety'' (appropriate use) of criticism, is regarded nowadays much more as depending on one's ''position'', or on the context of the situation ("I would like to say something, but I am not in a position to criticize").

As many more people are able to travel to, or have contact with worlds completely different to their own, new problems are created of how to ''relativize'' criticisms and their limitations, how to put everything into meaningful proportion. This affects what a criticism is understood to be, or to mean, and what its overall significance is thought to be.

People become more circumspect about criticizing in public, because they realize that as soon as they get interactive and speak out, they can be manipulated with it, in very clever ways. They might be "trapped" with what they say. Or, their ideas might get stolen. For example, the symbolic protest of the Occupy movement of 2011-2012, which originated in the 2011 Israeli social justice protests, consisted of camping out in tents in public space (in Hebrew, ''Mechaat HaOhalim''), until they were removed, often violently, by the police. This is a criticism along the lines of: "if you truly care about me, then you would try to find out more about me, what I want, and why I am camping with my tent in public space." Eventually Occupy London succeeded in getting their article of criticism published in the ''Financial Times''.

Digital information technology and telecommunications have begun to change drastically the ways people have for getting attention, or for being taken seriously. In turn, this has begun to change the ways people have for ''going about'' criticizing, and what criticism ''means'' for people.

With more possibilities for sophisticated expression, criticism has tended to become more "layered". Beneath the observable surface presentation of criticism, which is freely advertised, there are often more additional layers of deeper criticism. These are not directly accessible, because they require additional information, or insight into additional meanings. To gain access to the "whole story" about a criticism, and not just "part of the story", may be conditional on fulfilling certain entry requirements ("if you don't have the ticket, you don't get the knowledge").

Together with the ability to make finer distinctions of meaning with the aid of digital equipment, the possibilities for ambiguity in criticism have increased: is a criticism being implied, or is it not, and if so, what exactly is the criticism? It can take more effort to unravel the full story.

Classification of types of criticisms

There exist many different kinds of criticism, which can be classified and sorted according to nine main facets (a nonagon or enneagon):

Each of these nine facets can be important in the battle of criticism. If one of them is disregarded, it can cause the criticism to fail, even although in other respects the criticism is validly produced. So the nonagon can provide a useful checklist to go over, before launching an important criticism.

To illustrate, in the area of religion, there could be criticism ''by'' religious people, criticism ''of'' religion or ''of'' religious people, criticism ''about'' particular religious issues, criticism of a religious ''nature'', criticism ''communicated'' in a religious way, criticism within a religious context, etc.

With each kind of criticism, one has to deal with the different aspects: the content, form and purpose of the criticism, the sender, delivery and target of the criticism, and the total context in which the criticism occurs. If, additionally, the recipient of the criticism is not the intended target, that is also a factor to consider.

There is also a tenth classification of criticism, in terms of intention. Criticisms could, for example, be sorted into "friendly criticisms" and "nasty criticisms". People do often "read" first of all the ''intention'' of a criticism (for example, tone of voice, or language being used). The trouble is only, that this is often more a ''subjective'' or ''interactive'' interpretation. Thus, what is "friendly" or what is "nasty", depends on point of view, or how people are interacting, and it involves interpretation. A criticism could be friendly, or nasty, depending of how one chooses to regard it, how one responds to it, or depending on the moment it is made. What the intention really is or was, can be challenging to prove. That is why it is not listed in the nonagon. It is a related but separate issue. If it is included, then there is no nonagon anymore, but a decahedron.

Varieties of criticism

In this section of the article, only the more common everyday kinds of criticism are briefly defined and discussed, in general terms. There are related articles on criticism which go into different topic areas in more depth.

Aesthetic criticism

Example: Oscar Wilde, John Berger

Aesthetic criticism is that part of aesthetics which is concerned with critically judging beauty and ugliness, tastfulness and tastelessness, style and fashion, the meaning and quality of design, and issues of human sentiment and affect (the evocation of pleasure and pain, likes and dislikes). Most parts of human life have an aesthetic dimension, which means there is plenty potential for criticism. Often architecture criticism is considered the highest form of aesthetic criticism, because architecture combines art, science and technology to build a pleasing home environment, a "living space" which people have to inhabit everyday, more or less permanently.

An aesthetic critic however does not simply say "it's beautiful" or "it's ugly." Instead, the aim is to ''explain'' the meaning of a work of art, ''why'' something is beautiful or ugly, or how the meaning of a design should be ''interpreted'', the stronger and weaker sides of a cultural object, etc. For this purpose, aesthetic critics have a toolkit of criteria which they can use in making their commentary. These criteria include such things as:

looking at the motive behind creative activity;

considering the total context within which creative activity occurred;

examining the techniques or physical forces used to create the aesthetic effect;

identifying the values, sentiments, interests, needs or ideals which are communicated by the phenomenon of interest;

relating the object of criticism to other objects, themes, traditions or genres which are linked to it;

evaluating the interaction between the observed and the observed, as well as the overall effect;

explaining the function, use or purpose which the object of the criticism fulfills.

Using these kinds of criteria, which usually assume extensive relevant knowledge, aesthetic critics can inform their audience about the achievements and limitations of the object of aesthetic criticism. In this way, they can draw attention to aesthetic issues which most people might have overlooked, educate people in their aesthetic appreciation, and stimulate debate about what kinds of aesthetic expressions are preferable.

In part, aesthetic criticism can genuinely ''prove'' aesthetic propositions - if they concern matters of factual or logical evidence. For example, either an artist had a certain motivation, or s/he did not. But insofar as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", there is always also a subjective element in aesthetic criticism, which is not provable, but expresses a preference, a personal taste. It may be possible to explain that preference, but it may not be possible to compare it meaningfully with other preferences.

Logical criticism

Example: Gilbert Ryle

In a logical criticism, an objection is raised about an idea, argument, action or situation on the ground that it does not make rational sense (there is something wrong with it because it is illogical, it does not follow, or it violates basic conventions of meaning - see Straight and Crooked Thinking). Such an objection usually refers to assumptions, coherence, implications and intent. Thus, the illogicality may involve that:

Something is being assumed or inferred improperly, without reasonable ground.

Something is internally inconsistent or self-contradictory, it is impossible to maintain all of its contents at one and the same time (because it would imply affirming and negating the same thing).

Something has implications or effects contrary to itself, or negating itself.

Something has effects contrary to its own purpose or intent, or contrary to the purpose or intent of someone concerned with it.

Something involves a language which superficially seems to make sense, but turns out to defy logical sense when examined more closely.

Logical criticism is rooted in the most basic cognitive principles which guide the behaviour of humans and other sentient organisms: stimulus ''identification'' ("this is the recognized identity of X"), stimulus ''distinction'' ("this is different from that"), and stimulus ''generalization'' ("this is the same, or like that" or "this is an instance of type X"). The Greek philosopher Aristotle stated the most basic building blocks of logic as the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction and the law of the excluded middle. These are basic conditions for making meaningful sense, and for non-arbitrary representation.

Logical criticism presupposes that people accept at least the most basic rules of logic. If people believe "things mean just what they want them to mean", or if people constantly "change the meaning to suit the moment", logical criticism is not at all effective. Logical criticism assumes that there is a definite, identifiable meaning which can be discovered, or at least that something can be proved to be meaningless (because it lacks any predictable pattern, or knowable, ordered pattern of any kind).

Logical criticism also presupposes that people agree about at least some basic facts and assumptions about the situation, or have in common at least some beliefs. It is not possible to argue about a logical criticism with somebody with whom one does not share any assumptions at all, or who is unwilling to consider at least the ''possibility'' that a given proposition might be true (or false). Very often, logical arguments take the form "suppose that X is the case", but if people reject the "suppose" or cannot imagine it, it becomes difficult to get the logical criticism off the ground.

Factual criticism

Example: Seymour Hersch

In a factual (empirical) criticism, an objection is raised about an idea, argument, action or situation on the ground that there is something wrong with the evidence of the known experience relevant to it. Typically,

Relevant purported facts are claimed to be false or implausible, i.e. not facts at all.

Relevant facts are said not to have been definitely established as true, or the likelihood that they are true, has not been established.

Relevant facts mentioned imply different stories which cannot be reconciled; accepting a fact would imply another fact which contradicts it in some way (there is overlap here with logical criticism).

The presentation of facts is biased; important relevant facts are left out of the story, or the total factual context is ignored.

Other relevant facts, which have not been mentioned, shed a different light on the issue.

Facts focused upon are not relevant to the purpose of those concerned.

Logical and factual criticism is generally considered important to ensure the consistency, authenticity and predictability of behaviour of any kind. Without the presence of the relevant consistency, authenticity and predictability, one cannot make appropriate sense of behaviour, which becomes disorienting and creates confusion, and therefore cannot guide behavioural choices effectively.

Philosophers have often debated about "what makes a fact, a fact." The basic problem with facts is that observations, made using the five senses, are never completely free from interpretation - to understand a fact as a fact, requires being able to place its meaning, which in turn requires basic cognitive categorizations not contained in the observed thing itself. A fact is concluded in the ''interaction'' between the observer and the observed.

Nevertheless, most people agree there are such things as "the stubborn facts", i.e. evidence which nobody can deny, because everybody will experience the evidence in the same way, under the same conditions. That reality is essential for effective factual criticism. If people regard the factual evidence being offered as "simply a subjective interpretation of experience", then factual criticism is not effective. Factual criticism assumes, that people agree there exists a reality beyond their personal experience; that it is possible to obtain reliable information about it; and that people will ordinarily experience the facts in the same way.

Positive criticism

Example: Oprah Winfrey

A positive criticism draws attention to a good or positive aspect of something which is being ignored, disregarded or overlooked. People may be able to see only the negative side of something, so that it becomes necessary to highlight the positive side. A positive criticism may also be a type of self-justification or self-defence.

The term "positive criticism" is also used in the sense that the criticism is "well-meant" or "well-intentioned" ("I mean it in a positive way") - here, it is emphasized the criticism is intended to serve a purpose which is constructive, or which the targeted person would approve of.

The basic aim of a positive criticism is usually to provide a better orientation, or frame of reference, for behaviour. It provides an idea which people can act on to improve the situation. At the very least, it provides more choices for behaviour, and therefore potentially enlarges behavioural freedom.

A positive criticism can be stated as a positive ''alternative'' ("there are good reasons for thinking that we are better off to do Y, instead of X"). It does not necessarily say, that the option criticized is all bad, but rather that an alternative option is ''better'', or more preferable.

Negative criticism

Negative criticism means voicing an objection to something, only with the purpose of showing that it is wrong, false, mistaken, nonsensical, objectionable, or disreputable. Generally, it suggests disapproval of something, or disagreement with something. Negative criticism is also often interpreted as an attack against a person (ad hominem). That may not have been the intention, but it can be interpreted that way.

Negative criticism can have the effect that the people criticized feel attacked or insulted by it, so that they either do not take it seriously, or react badly to it. Much often depends on ''how much'' negative criticism there is, and how much criticism is transmitted at once. People can handle some negative criticism, but they may not be able to handle a whole lot of negative criticism, at least not all at once.

The downside of negative criticism is, often, that it tells people what they ''cannot'' or ''should not'' do or believe, rather than telling them what they ''can'' or ''should'' do (what possibilities or options there are). So it may be disabling, rather than enabling. People might reply to a negative criticism that "this is all very well, but I cannot do anything with it", or they might say "now what?!". Yet, negative criticism may be very necessary at times, to prevent a course of action which would be harmful to the people concerned. If people would be afraid to state a negative criticism, this might make the existing problem so much worse.

The upside of negative criticism is that it can explain what the limitations of an idea, an action or a situation are, for the sake of being realistic. Sometimes it is necessary to say "no" to something (and explain why "no" is "no").

In the modern world, negative criticism has acquired the stigma of "being negative", and people who make negative criticisms can be easily exploited or manipulated. For this reason, many people nowadays express their negative criticism simply by not saying anything, not paying attention to something or someone, or by being absent.

Constructive criticism

Constructive criticism aims to show that the intent or purpose of something is better served by an alternative approach. In this case, making the criticism is not necessarily deemed wrong, and its purpose is respected; rather, it is claimed that the same goal could be better achieved via a different route. Constructive criticisms are often suggestions for improvement - how things could be done better or more acceptably. They draw attention to how an identified problem could be solved, or how it could be solved better.

Both negative and constructive criticism have their appropriate uses, but often it is considered a requirement of criticism that they are ''combined''. Thus, it is often considered that those who find fault with something should also offer an option for putting it right. More generally, any rule for behaviour of any kind usually implies both "do's" and "don'ts". Doing something usually also implies ''not'' doing something else, and, not doing something, often implies doing something else. There is therefore a conscious choice "to do this, or do that", but not both at the same time.

So, to orient behaviour, people need to know both what is "ruled in" and what is "ruled out". If the criticism concerns only one aspect, but not the other, it may supply only incomplete information, which is not really adequate to orient behaviour or guide action. One of the most elementary reasons why a rule is ignored, flouted or subverted is, because ''either'' the positive ''or'' the negative aspect of what it means is unspecified.

Destructive criticism

Example: George S. Patton

Destructive criticism aims to destroy the target of criticism, by making the destructive criticism (e.g. "you should shut up and follow the program"). The aim is to show that the point of view of someone else has no validity at all, or lacks any merit.

In some contexts, destructive criticism is regarded as an undesirable nuisance, a threat, or as completely unjustifiable, especially if it involves personal attacks on people. Destructive criticism is often criticized ''because'' it has a destructive effect, instead of a positive effect (this may also just be an accusation or allegation, if there is no proof that the effect actually ''is'' destructive).

However, in political and military contexts, destructive criticisms may be essential to save resources, or to save lives among one's own group. An idea in itself is not dangerous, but an idea proposed in a particular context can be very dangerous, so that people feel that it should be disarmed by mercilessly criticizing it. The ultimate destructive criticism occurs when people and property are physically destroyed.

The term "destructive criticism" is also used to mean that the level, scope or intensity of criticism is such, that it becomes mainly destructive. In this context, people believe that the criticism is so great, or there is so much criticism, that it only destroys things. For example, a debate or controversy can get out of control, so that everybody is at war with everybody else, and everybody is opposed to everybody else. In that case, it may well be that the criticism is being overdone ("overkill"). What started out as a structured dialogue to identify conflicting aspects of a situation, ends up as a chaos in which nobody can agree with anyone else anymore.

Practical criticism

Example: William James

Practical criticism is an objection or appraisal of the type, that something "does or does not work" in practical reality, due to some reason or cause. Often people will say, "that might be fine in theory, but in practice it does not work". Inversely, they might show with experiment that something works well in practice, even although the theory says this is not possible - so that the theory ought to be adjusted.

Practical criticism usually refers to relevant practical experience, to reveal why an action is wrongheaded, or under what conditions it would succeed. When an idea is proposed, people might first consider if it makes sense. But usually they will also weigh up if it is practical to do something about it, in terms of the consequences it has - for example, would relevant people or organizations be better off or worse off? Does it get in the way of other things? Can it be sustained? Can we live with that?

Practical criticisms can be very effective, if people are indeed concerned with practicalities. If, however, people are purely concerned with what things mean, or ought to mean, they may not care about whether their way of seeing things is "practical" or not. People might hold on to their beliefs or defend them, even if they are not very practical at all, because they feel those beliefs are essential to who they are.

Practical criticism usually succeeds best, if it is made on the basis of the practical experience of the critic. Somebody who has practical experience with an issue, is usually best placed to make a practical criticism.

Theoretical criticism

Example: Karl Marx

Theoretical criticism is concerned with the meaning of ideas, including ideas on which a practice is based. It is concerned with the coherence or meaningfulness of a theory, its correspondence to reality, the validity of its purpose, and the limitations of the viewpoint it offers. Theories can be criticized from the point of view of other theories ("how much sense does it make"), or internally "in their own terms" ("is it consistent"), or in terms of the experiential evidence there is for those theories ("how well does the theory correspond to the facts").

At issue is not simply whether an idea makes sense or is consistent, but whether it makes sense and is consistent in terms of the theoretical framework of which it is a part. In other words, at issue is the relationship between many linked ideas - what effect does the adoption of one idea have for a lot of ideas which are related to it, and how does a theory relate to all the relevant evidence it can be called upon to explain. A theory can consist of one major hypothesis, but usually a theory consists of a series of linked hypotheses.

The merits of theories are usually judged according to three main criteria: their ''usefulness'', their ''explanatory power'' and their ''predictive power''. A theory is useful if it can help to guide or orient activity, serves the relevant purpose, or if it helps to make sense of things. A theory with great explanatory power is a theory which is able to account for all the relevant evidence, not just some. If the assumptions made by the theory are well-taken, it can predict effects, outcomes and results quite accurately. If theories are criticized, it is usually on the ground that they are not useful, do not speak to the situation, and fail to explain or predict things properly.

Theoretical criticism often occurs in the context of eclecticism and intellectual opportunism, when people more or less creatively "cobble together" in one interpretation a bunch of ideas and models which are drawn from a variety of different sources. The criticism might be, that those ideas do not truly belong together, that they are not really compatible, or that they result in an elaborate description which fails to explain anything. The theoretical critic then attempts to redress the situation, by showing that a consistent theory requires that some ideas must be abandoned or changed, or that the whole eclectic combination should be abandoned in favour of a quite different interpretation.

Moral criticism

Example: Alasdair MacIntyre

Moral criticism is basically concerned with the rights and wrongs of values, ethics or norms which people uphold, what is good and bad about what people do, or the rights and wrongs of the conditions which people face. Morality is concerned with what is good and bad for people, and how we know that. There are many forms of moral criticism, such as:

Showing that actions taken are inconsistent or incompatible with certain values being upheld, or values deemed desirable.

Counterposing one set of values to another, with the claim that the one set is better than the other.

Arguing that certain values are intrinsically objectionable, regardless of any other values that may be relevant.

Arguing that certain values ought to be adopted, or rejected, for some reason.

Showing that somebody ought, or ought not to do something for the sake of integrity.

Rational or civil morality is based on the idea that people should be treated in the same ways, in the same kind of situation; the same norm should apply to all people concerned, in the same relevant situation. The exception that proves the rule implies that there does exist a moral rule, to which it is an exception, for a definite and explicable reason. Such a morality is often assumed because, without it, human behaviour would be unpredictable or arbitrary, and cannot be relied upon; the necessary co-operation between people as social beings would be hindered. Modern jurisprudence and legal systems are, at least in principle, based on this idea. It originates from the two social norms, often expressed in religions, that one should "do unto others as one would like them to do unto oneself" and "not do unto others as one would not like them to do unto oneself." Consistent behaviour in this sense is regarded as most likely to be effective for survival and achievement in the long run, in contrast to chaotic or arbitrary behaviour ("arbitrary" in the sense that one's own interests and needs, or the interests and needs of others are not properly taken into account).

Nevertheless, the values which people uphold often clash, and how "consistency" should be interpreted may be in dispute. Hence moral criticism ranges from whether there should be a moral rule at all and the justification of a moral rule, to the interpretation of the meaning of a moral rule, and to how it is in practice applied. The debate can be pursued formally (for example by lawyers, judges, religious authorities and politicians) or informally (by any citizens of a community). Philosophers of ethics aim to shed light on moral disputes by means of critical thinking, often with the aim of clearing up moral confusions, and improving moral behaviour.

Scientific criticism

Example: Imre Lakatos, Galileo Galilei

Scientific criticism is not primarily concerned with moral values, but more with quantitative or categorical values. It focuses on whether something can be proved to be true or false, or what the limits of its valid application are, quite irrespective of whether people like that or not, or what the moral implications are. For this purpose, the scientist employs logic and relevant evidence offered by experience, as well as experimentation, and gives attention to the intent and purpose of relevant activity.

Obviously a scientist is also a moral being with moral biases, but science aims to ensure that moral biases ''do not prejudice scientific findings'' (the requirement of objectivity). If scientists would ignore relevant evidence pertaining to a case, for example because of some personal bias, they could be criticized for that.

Scientists can also criticize a specific morality on scientific grounds, but in a scientific capacity they do not do so on the ground that the morality itself is intrinsically objectionable, but rather that "it cannot be reconciled with the facts", i.e. it involves assumptions or valuations which are contrary to the known logical and factual evidence that is relevant.

Science is typically not concerned with judging the desirability of ends in themselves, but rather with the ''relationship'' of means and ends. The question in scientific activity is usually to ascertain - with reasoning, study and experiment - whether the chosen means can or cannot, as a matter of objective fact, produce the envisaged result, and why that is. So a scientist mainly aims to prove with evidence and reasoning, that ''if'' one wants to achieve X, ''then'' one must do Y, or not do Z. But whether one wants to achieve X or not, may be a separate question, on which a scientist cannot adjudicate, because telling people what they ''ought'' to be doing with themselves falls outside the realm of scientific inquiry. At most a scientist might say that, if X is achieved, it will have specific benefits, and if it is not achieved, it will have certain harmful effects or costs for the people concerned (or vice versa).

When scientists criticize other scientists, the criticism can be very specialized and technical, so that it may not be very easy to understand the meaning - unless one is familiar with the particular scientific discipline. There are some general rules for scientific criticism, but most often each branch of scientific research has its own rules and formats for criticizing.

Religious criticism

Example: Hans Küng, Karen Armstrong

Religious criticism is primarily concerned with judging actions and ideas according to whether God (or the Gods, or other divine beings) would regard them as good or bad for human beings (or for the world). Normally a religion has some sacred or holy texts, which serve as an authoritative guide to interpreting actions and ideas as either good or bad. From these, religious authorities derive norms for how people ought to live and act in the world.

However, the sacred texts may not always be clear, and they may require interpretation. Thus, theologians ask critical questions such as, "how do we know what God wants for human beings?". They try to answer these questions by forms of reasoning which are based on religious principles, rules and laws, by paying attention to what people are experiencing, and by divine inspiration granted through prayer and meditation.

Religious authorities such as the Pope may voice criticisms of how people are behaving, because people's behaviour conflicts with the doctrines of the church. In religious criticism, the motive or intention of the criticism (''why'' somebody is criticizing) is always very important. Criticism has to be offered in the right spirit so that it has a good effect.

Religious criticism is successful if it clarifies exactly what is good and bad, and why that is, in such a way that people are convinced to do what religion says is the "right thing" to do. Religious criticism is often very difficult to do well, because people's spiritual beliefs are very personal and the personal meaning attached to spiritual matters may be rather unique - it may not be so easy to understand it, it may not be so rational or logical, and it may not conform to a shared framework or shared interpretation. In addition, because it is a very personal matter, it may require a great deal of respectful sensitivity to approach a spiritual issue in a good way.

Scholarly criticism

Example: Mike Davis

Criticism is considered "scholarly" only if it conforms to scholarly standards. A scholarly critic probes deeply into a problem, looking at all the relevant evidence, the quality of reasoning involved, and the uses or purposes which are at stake. When he considers a problem, a scholar usually familiarizes himself thoroughly with the relevant background literature on the subject. He tries to make sure that he cannot be accused of inconsistent reasoning, that his argument is free from factual error, and that all the relevant aims, motives and purposes are made clear. A scholar also conscientiously documents "who said what and when" so that the ''sources'' of all the arguments are made clear. Thus, the scholar tries to be as objective or evenhanded as he can in making a criticism, and makes sure he has "done his homework".

In this way, his criticism is much more difficult to ignore or to refute. Most often, a scholarly publication is refereed ("screened") by other knowledgeable scholars, who critically examine the text to find possible faults, and possibly suggest alterations. In this way, scholars always try to ensure the quality of what is being said. A scholarly criticism is successful if it provides a proof or refutation which nobody can rationally deny, and which is therefore accepted by most people as definitive. Much scholarly criticism does not provide truly spectacular proofs or refutations - this is difficult to do, if many bright minds have worked or are working on the same issue - but it can nevertheless "score a point" which is valuable and significant. To substantiate even a small scholarly criticism and "make it stick", can take a lot of research work, and can require a lot of perseverance and patience on the part of the scholar.

A scholarly critic aims primarily to improve the understanding of an issue, by means of research and the criticism of research, irrespective of any prejudices which there may be about the issue. Scholarly criticism does not mean "impartiality" or "neutrality". Indeed, the very fact that a scholarly criticism is being made, implies that a partisan position is being taken. However, a scholar usually submits his own considerations and findings to a public forum in which criticisms can be evaluated on their merits and faults, with the explicit aim to make a contribution to the search for truth, and with the attitude that he could be wrong. Thus, scholarly criticism always involves the attitude that one is open to criticism, and does not close off the possibility of criticism.

What exactly the applicable "scholarly standards" for criticism are, can be open to debate as well. Nevertheless participants in different academic disciplines or scientific specialisms usually operate with a reasonable amount of consensus about what the standards are. In general terms, such things as "lying, cheating, fraud, misinformation and misrepresentation" disqualify a criticism from being "scholarly". Scholarly criticism requires the greatest respect for truth, honesty in presenting a case, and a form of communication acceptable to the scholarly community.

Critical criticism

Example: Christopher Hitchens

Critical criticism is "criticism for the sake of criticism". Its most popular modern form is contrarianism. The highest positive value of the critical critic is to be critical; to be critical, or to be a dissident, is, in this case, a way of life, the highest good. Such a position is itself often criticized for its motivation. People often feel that there should be a ''good reason'' for being critical, and that being critical "simply for the sake of being critical" is ''not'' a good reason. Instead, it is seen as a nuisance which can lead to blithe cynicism without constructive result. If everything is being demolished by criticism, there may not be anything of value left. If people's only stance is "to be critical", they can be accused of only ''negating'' things, without ''affirming'' anything, which provides no positive orientation for behaviour informing people about "what to do". People usually cannot cope with too much talk about everything which is not possible, they want to know what is possible.

Critical critics might respond to such an accusation, by saying that it is surely always valuable and important to highlight the ''limitations'' of ideas and happenings, and that this could not very well occur, if criticism was banned ("in a world gone mad, it makes sense to be critical"). It may be necessary to point out that things are wrong, even if it is not known how to put it right (yet). Critical critics might argue that it is necessary to be "forever on guard" against illusions, and to be "eternally vigilant" against nonsense. Without criticism, things are not relativised, or put in proportion. A typical reply to this argument is, that many illusions in the world ''cannot'' be abolished simply by ''criticizing'' them. That is, people actually have to ''do'' something positively, to establish the truth, and they cannot very well do that, if they only focus on "what is not there", or on "what is wrong". If the whole situation was turned around by taking action, there might be no need anymore for criticism. Criticism would become irrelevant or meaningless in that case.

So the ''means'' used by the critical critics may not lead to the ''end'' which they favour. Sometimes people just have to "shut up and do something". In that case, critical criticism itself seems to contain an ultimate limitation: to get rid of the illusion or falsehood, might require getting rid of critical criticism, or going beyond it. To persist forever in critical criticism, might itself perpetuate an illusion, and the critical critics, if they were completely consistent, might not be able to survive their own "critical attitude to everything". Or, at the very least, they would have to be critical of their own critical criticism - they might be defeated by their own stance that there is nothing immune to criticism.

Radical and revolutionary criticism

Example: Michael Moore, Greg Palast

The word "radical" is derived from the Latin word "radix" meaning "root". Thus, radical criticism means criticism which goes to the root of things, to the roots of the problem. Revolutionary criticism means criticism which aims to overturn or overthrow an existing idea or state of affairs; thus, an existing idea may be "turned upside down". Revolutionary criticism is sometimes also used in the sense of criticism which is unprecedented, or previously unheard of. Typically these kinds of criticism are associated with the youth, who are the new generation finding their identity in a battle with the older generations.

The radical critic aims to track down the most fundamental assumptions underlying an idea, position or situation in order to show the ultimate reason why it is true or false. The concern is with what something is ultimately based on. For this purpose, radical critics are not satisfied with superficial ideas. They question authority and the status quo. This presupposes the freedom to criticize, and to pursue a train of thought to its ultimate limits. Radical critics keep asking "why, why, why" very thoroughly, until they reach a complete answer to the puzzle of why things appear as they do. Radical criticism may be revolutionary, insofar as its result overthrows previous ideas with a new perspective, but it may also only demolish a particular way of seeing things, or show that an alternative way of seeing things or doing things is ''possible''.

Radical or revolutionary criticism is often equated with political extremism, but this is not necessarily the case at all. This type of criticism may only just prove, in a "devastatingly simple" or even rather innocent way, that something is true or false, contrary to the popular perceptions or cherished beliefs. It may be "extreme", only in the sense that it falls outside the "normal" way of seeing things. If radical critics succeed in proving their case, their idea may in due course become accepted as "normal", and become an ordinary, mainstream idea. Many if not most ideas which people hold nowadays and accept as normal, originally were considered as "extremely radical", "revolutionary" or even "dangerous". It just took a long time before they became generally accepted - the radical thinker, by going beyond the ordinary, was merely ahead of the rest in grasping the essence of the matter.

So the distinction between "radical" and "normal" is, often, really only a relative one; it may have less to do with the content of ideas, than with how much they are accepted or not. Whereas the radical critic may, in his own day, be regarded as an oddball or a maverick, later on he may be hailed as a great thinker or even a genius. But this is not always the case. After all, even although radical critics may try hard, they may fail to prove the root of the matter, and thus they may be forgotten without acclaim. People may regard them only as "troublemakers".

Radical criticism can be a bit of a gamble, even if the criticism is perfectly valid. The reason is that it may open up a "can of worms" and unleash intense controversy, which can get beyond what the radical critic can handle, and which lasts for a long time. People may well know that there is a problem, but they prefer to avoid it, because they know that, if it came out into the open, it would cause a pack of trouble. Thus, when the radical critic exposes the problem or proposes a radical solution to it, people can become very agitated. To state a radical criticism often takes considerable courage, because there can be a powerful backlash to be reckoned with. Skilled radicals therefore try to make sure they can deal with the consequences of making their criticism. If they don't, they could be defeated by what they said.

Conservative criticism

Example: Roger Scruton, Ann Coulter, Leo Strauss

Conservative criticism is primarily concerned with conformity to a rule or principle, and continuity with the past (a tradition or heritage of some sort). Conservative critics consider that:

everything in the world has its proper and rightful place.

people ought to know what that place is, for their own good.

people ought to stay in their own proper place, because they belong there.

people should not try to leave their proper place in life, or misplace things, because that only causes trouble.

the changes which occur, are only really ''variations'' of things which always remain the same in human existence, because "that is how people are" or "that is how society is".

Conservative criticism is therefore not necessarily "narrowminded", because knowing what the proper place of things is, might involve a vast knowledge about how things work. There may be very good reasons for keeping things as they are or were.

The most common forms of conservative criticism are that somebody is breaking with a rule, wrongly rejecting a tradition, or wrongly placing something where, they think, it does not belong. Conservative critics are as concerned with the future as anybody else, it is just that they expect no more from the future, than there has been in the past; and, to tackle the future, they believe only the "tried and tested methods" should be used. Typically conservatism is associated with older people, who "have seen it all and done it all". But conservative criticisms can be made by all kinds of people, they are not automatically "conservatives" because they make a conservative criticism.

Conservative criticism has nothing much to do with "left-wing" or "right-wing", because left-wing people are often very conservative, in the defined sense, while right-wing people can also be very radical, in the defined sense. The difference between "radical" and "conservative" has more to do with the belief in whether ''a change to something genuinely new'' is really possible and necessary. Radicals typically believe strongly that such change is highly desirable and necessary, and that it can be achieved. Their criticism is that there is ''not enough'' change. Conservative critics, by contrast, are very skeptical about any such change, because they feel the change will really "just be another form" of something that already existed in the past.

The conservative criticism is typically that there has already been ''too much'' change, of the wrong kind, and that this change has ''led people astray''; they should return to how things were always done in the past, then things will be better. A return to the correct tradition, the correct way of life that existed in the past, is the only big change that conservative critics are really interested in.

Conservative critics may well recognize that important changes do occur, it is merely that whatever the changes, those changes do not and cannot alter the eternal conditions of human existence. "Details" may change, but "in essence" the human predicament remains the same as it has always been. So conservative critics typically emphasize ''continuity'' over change. They believe it is just not possible to change human existence very radically, whatever the appearance. Conservative criticism therefore says that, when people claim to be doing something new, or claim to have changed things, this is just spurious and superficial, because "in essence" things stay much as they always have been; people may "think" they are innovating, but in reality most of it has been done before.

A true conservative critic does not think in terms of "living for the moment", but in terms of years, decades, centuries and eternity. He criticizes on the basis of ''long-lasting'' principles. The ultimate aim of conservative criticism is to achieve ''stability'', so that things stay in the place where they belong, orderly and peacefully. This is logical, because it fits with the idea that human beings quite simply "are as they are", and that this will never change. Resistance to this reality, the conservative feels, is not only useless, but also just makes people unhappy; "you can't change human nature".

Conservative criticism can be effective, if it is feasible to keep things the way they are, or to return to a traditional way of doing things. It is usually not effective, if change is absolutely unavoidable and inevitable, or if it is impossible to go back to the way of doing things in the past. However, even if change cannot be avoided, there may be several different options for how to approach it, and conservative critics are then likely to choose a "conservative option".

Liberal criticism

Example: Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Friedman

Liberal criticism is primarily concerned with people's rights (including human rights) and freedoms, with whether people are taking responsibility for their choices or not, and with the limits of toleration. Liberal critics believe that:

the interests, needs and rights of autonomous individuals are most important, not group entities (except if they are groups of recognizable individuals);

people should be free to make their own choices in life, and should take individual responsibility for those choices;

people should have equal opportunities in the marketplace;

people should be rewarded according to the merits of what they do or achieve themselves, not according to their status, or inherited privileges;

people are entitled to a private sphere of their own, i.e. a distinction should be made between private and public life.

Liberal criticism is focused on making sure that all the conditions exist in which individuals can develop, flourish and prosper successfully, as independent people, with a minimum of constraints. Liberals therefore criticize anything that gets in the way of this. People’s rights, privacy and choices should be respected as much as possible, and obstacles to a free life should be attacked and removed. Liberals are in favour of pluralism: nobody has a monopoly on the truth, and other, different voices should be heard. At the same time, people should be prevented from interfering too much in other people’s lives. If people make the wrong choices, or if they don’t take responsibility for their own choices and their own lives, they should be criticized for that. If people are unfairly shut out from opportunities, or if they are unfairly rewarded, liberals will often criticize it. Liberal criticism is associated especially with young adults who are starting to make their own way in life, on their own strength.

Liberal criticism can often become extraordinarily complex and subtle, involving very fine distinctions. The reason is that the interests, rights and obligations of individuals constantly have to be weighed against the interests, rights and obligations of other individuals. Rules and principles have to be created so that individuals are not too constrained, but also that they are prevented from interfering unduly in the lives of others. People should be “free, but not too free”. People are "too free" when they become irresponsible, anti-social and arbitrary, i.e. when they fail to regulate their own behaviour appropriately, and have to be regulated by others. Liberal criticism is therefore always very concerned with finding the right kind of ''balance'', or the right ''nuance'', which would (ideally) express a situation of harmony among individuals (or expresses the best way to regard something). Liberals accept that conflicts will always occur, but conflicts should be kept within certain bounds, and methods should be found to resolve them fairly. Much liberal criticism is devoted to defining exactly “what should be tolerated and what should not be tolerated”, and explaining why that is.

At its best, liberal criticism takes a "liberal" view of human beings, meaning that it is sufficiently open-minded to consider issues in a very comprehensive way, from all different angles. It allows people enough freedom to try out something new, tolerates differences of opinion, and lets people learn from their mistakes.

At worst, liberal criticism “misses the wood for the trees” because, by focusing on individuals and individual solutions, it overlooks the “bigger picture”, or fails to understand the meaning of people's social coexistence. Liberals often cannot imagine anything beyond individuals, and therefore, when they have to describe the total situation in which individuals have to operate (social systems, macro-realities or collectivities), their perspective may become eclectic, fragmented or particularist.

Generally, liberal critics believe that the world would be better off if everyone is a liberal; but if they are driven into a corner by the criticisms of others, i.e. if they are robbed of their freedom in some sense, they can also become very anti-liberal and despotic - at least until such time as their own liberal way of being is tolerated again.

Liberal criticism typically does not work well, when the interests of the people concerned are mutually exclusive, and cannot be reconciled at all. Liberal criticism usually assumes that people are sufficiently flexible to be willing to discuss, negotiate or compromise about something, i.e. that people have an attitude of "give and take".

Speculative criticism

Example: Arthur C. Clarke

Speculative criticism is criticism which focuses on what something “might, could, or ought to” mean, or what “might, could, or ought to” follow from it. It might also focus on the “probable” or “likely” meaning of something, or the “probable” or “likely” consequences of it. Speculative criticism usually occurs in the absence of (enough) evidence that would decide an issue. It goes “beyond the facts”, because the facts available (if any) are not conclusive. Thus, speculative criticisms usually occur when things are either not certain, definite or fixed (yet), or when multiple different meanings are possible. Since most people have to deal with some uncertainties in their daily lives, and have to interpret things without (yet) knowing the details of the full story, they entertain speculative thoughts as a normal everyday occurrence . For example, if somebody is thinking of buying a used car, he or she might think of what “might” be right or wrong with it, without knowing for sure.

A speculative criticism often takes the form that “if we assumed such-and-such, then it would seem that a consequence (desirable or undesirable) would follow”. Yet whether the assumption is valid, remains uncertain. Whether the inference made on the strength of the assumption is valid, may likewise be uncertain. The speculative critic imagines different positive and negative scenarios which could be applicable, ''if'' certain conditions are assumed to exist. Or, somebody might say, “intuitively I would object to such a statement”, without definite grounds or reliable information being available. Something could be “plausible” (on the face of it, it makes sense), but not (yet) “provable”. There could "probably" be something wrong with a thing or idea, without definite proof that it is wrong.

Speculative criticism is often criticized precisely because it is speculative, i.e. because relevant evidence is unavailable, or because the criticism is made before “the evidence is in.” In this case, the criticism is considered to lack any solid basis. For example, politicians (or political commentators) might dismiss “speculative newspaper stories” because they believe that these stories are just “spin” based on gossip and hearsay, and not based on any “hard evidence”.

Nevertheless speculative criticism can play an important role (e.g. in research, in art, in hermeneutics and in literary theory), because the same information can be “read” in different ways, and read in different ways by different people. What the information means, is in this case not fixed; it is open to interpretation, it has different meanings, and it may be, that what it means can only be established by interacting with the information. By means of speculative criticism, it is established what the information could possibly mean, perhaps as a prologue to more thorough verification. For example, when archaeologists find some very old bones, they might debate their hunches about the civilization of the people to whom the bones belonged. In all sorts of fields of human endeavour, it can be important and valuable to establish, through criticisms, what the ''possible'' significance of something is. Speculative criticism does not necessarily assume that things mean "anything you like". It may only be that the significance of something could be interpreted in a ''limited number'' of different ways.

Speculative criticism can be useful and credible, if people have to evaluate situations where there are unknowns, uncertainties, novelties or different possibilities (see also brainstorming). It is not very credible, when a definite answer could easily be obtained, “if only” the speculative critics bothered to do a bit of thinking and fact-finding themselves, and if they verified the claims being made properly.

Foolish criticism

Foolish criticism is unclear about what the motive or purpose of the criticism is, or about what the consequence/effect of the criticism is. Usually it connotes lack of self-insight or a good understanding of the motives or issue involved. The foolish critic often mistakes what his target should be, and therefore, his criticism is really "at the wrong address", it is in some sense misplaced, disingenious or misjudged ("clutching at straws", "tilting at windmills").

Foolish criticism is not necessarily arbitrary or willy-nilly, but it is "foolish", because it does the critic (or his intended target) no good. Typically it is therefore self-defeating, which might make people wonder why it is being stated at all. People can become terribly obsessed with a criticism, without really being aware of ''what'' it is truly about, ''why'' it is being made, or what the ''effect'' of it is. They might feel they should "pipe in" about an issue, without any awareness of a clear motivation.

Foolish criticism may lack any clear direction, being prompted simply by a grudge or gripe, a feeling of unease, or a sense of dissatisfaction. People often say, "don't criticize, what you don't understand", meaning that first people should understand things and their effects properly, before launching into criticism. If they do not, the criticism might "backfire" and have an effect which is opposite to what is intended. Criticism is truly foolish, if people persist in a criticism regardless, even though it is demonstrably not well-taken.

Foolish criticism is sometimes also interpreted as comical criticism ("critical foolery" or "fooling around with criticism") where the critic aims to entertain with his criticism.

Foolish criticism usually means that the criticism and the critic are not taken seriously by people who understand what the issue is about; thus, the criticism may have no other effect than that it makes people laugh, shrug or feel annoyed. People may acknowledge that a criticism is "brave" (they credit the critic with the courage to make a criticism), but also that it is "foolish" (because, by making it, the critic sacrifices something important which he did not need to do).

Professional criticism

Example: Lucy Kellaway

The term "professional criticism" is applied in several ways.

Criticism which is ''professionally done'' - this implies that it is expertly done, and could hardly be improved. That usually means that it is so well-designed, that nobody can deny it, and that people feel something necessarily has to be done about it.

Criticism which is offered ''by a professional'', rather than an amateur or layman. Somebody may offer a criticism "in his professional capacity", meaning that he bases himself on his professional experience with the subject of the criticism. This does not, however, automatically mean that the criticism will be good.

Somebody is being criticized, because he has ''flouted a professional standard''. Normally, a skilled occupation or a profession has a set of standards, which aims to ensure the quality of work. If the standards were not there, the goods and services supplied would be shoddy, useless or unsafe. Professionals learn what the standard is, through training and education, and they explain relevant aspects of that standard to the people they supervise. The standards can include a code of ethics, rules for behaviour, technical norms and procedures, legal rules, etc. It is expected that people who work in a profession really follow the standards of that profession. If they do not, they can be criticized for this failure. In that case, their behaviour is regarded as "not professional" or "unprofessional".

The ''criticism of professionals'' or the ''criticism of a profession'' may occur, sometimes in a somewhat humorous, or satirical way. It could be done by professionals themselves, or by amateurs or laypersons. In this case, there is some skepticism about what the status of "being professional" actually adds to solving a problem, or there is skepticism about the claims made by a profession about how it can contribute to solving a problem. It is often implied here, that the standards of professionals do no justice to a specific situation, or that there is a case of professional cretinism: the professional gets it wrong, because he is ''unable'' to think outside of his own profession (he is imprisoned in a framework that does not lead to a solution).

Not infrequently, some of these different senses of professional criticism are mixed together, especially when people try to ''pretend'' somebody's criticism is authoritative (they seem to have a professional expertise, although they really lack this expertise), or when people try to ''pretend'' that somebody's criticism is not authoritative (they are treated as no better than the rest, although in reality they are highly professional, and more competent and experienced than the rest).

Self-criticism

Example: Tony Danza, Tom Selleck

Self-criticism (or what academics sometimes call "autocritique") refers to the ability to appraise the pro's and con's of one's own beliefs, thoughts, actions, behaviour or results, especially from the point of view of how others might regard them. The self-criticism might occur in private, or it might happen in a group discussion. Sometimes the self-criticism is aired publicly, specifically to show people that a person or group no longer believes in something which it formerly did; at other times, the self-criticism remains a hidden secret behind closed doors.

Self-criticism requires a certain flexibility of mind, because it assumes a person is able to call into question his own behaviour and thinking - instead of believing that he "naturally" is the way he is, or that he can "never be wrong". Often it requires that people are able to "step outside themselves", and see themselves from a different perspective. The self-critic is willing to search for, recognize, and accept objections against his own behaviour, or his own characteristics; he is willing to accept that he could be wrong, or indeed that he ''is'' in the wrong.

Self-criticism can be very difficult, for several reasons.

People can be very resistant to admitting they are wrong about something, or that they did (or said) the wrong thing. They like to believe they got it right, even when others disagree. Acknowledging that they got it wrong, could be very embarrassing, confusing or distressing - especially if they personally invested a lot in the wrong idea. Their whole world might crumble.

People might have "blind spots" in their awareness, i.e. they are simply unable to see a part of themselves for what it is (unless others point it out to them). In that case, they are unable to criticize themselves, because they don't know what there is to criticize.

If people did engage in self-criticism, others might interpret it as a sign of weakness ("you got it wrong, so why should I take you seriously?"). Thus, the self-critic might no longer have the same confidence, or become vulnerable to attack from others.

Self-criticism is an essential component of learning. In order to be able to change one's behaviour, improve one's style, and adjust to a new situation, it is necessary to recognize personal errors as errors. Once the errors are known, something can be done about them; a different path can be pursued. One also needs to be able to tell the difference between success and failure, and not mistake one for the other. Only then is it possible to truly "learn from one's mistakes." Often, the most challenging part is to know what exactly the mistake or success consists in. The aim of self-criticism is to find all that out, aided by memory.

People sometimes say, "there is only so much criticism you can take". This is especially true of self-criticism. Usually people are only prepared to criticize themselves within certain limits, otherwise it becomes confusing, disorienting, or even lethal. If a person arrives at the conclusion that most of what he is about is wrong, he can be plunged into a disorienting chaos, where he is unable to evaluate things properly anymore. Thus, while most people regard self-criticism as healthy, as a sign of good character, and as necessary for learning, ''excessive'' or ''enforced'' self-criticism is regarded as unhealthy (as destructive for the individual). The ultimate self-criticism can be a final self-attack through deliberate suicide. Suicidal persons are willing to give up their right to exist, they no longer believe their life is worth living. Thus, it is possible to be "too hard on oneself", leading to self-destructive behaviour.

The psychology of criticism

In general, the psychology of criticism studies the cognitive and emotional aspects of criticism, the behavioural characteristics of criticism, and its influence on how people are relating.

Area of study

The psychology of criticism is primarily concerned with:

Parents, teachers, lawyers, managers and politicians are often concerned with these issues, because it can make a great deal of difference to how problems are tackled and resolved.

The motivation as well as the effect of criticism may be rational, or it may be non-rational or arbitrary; it may be healthy or unhealthy.

When psychologists study criticism as a type of human behaviour, they do not usually study it "in general" - such a general study is often considered to be more a ''philosophical'' concern. Psychologists usually study it in specific contexts and situations. The reason is partly technical (it is difficult to construct and prove universal generalizations about criticism as a human behaviour) and partly practical (it is more useful to understand particular behaviours which are of direct practical concern).

The most basic rule

The most basic "rule-of-thumb" of criticism which psychologists usually recommend is:

Rationale

The thought behind this basic norm for criticism, is very simple:

If individuals are attacked for their personal characteristics (for "being who they are"), they cannot ''do'' much with that, except to fight it off. They cannot help being who they are, and they cannot very well change that. So after the personal attack is made, nothing really changes, because nothing can change. For example, if people are criticized because of their religious faith, this can generate enormous controversy; but after all is said and done, nothing has really changed, since people born and raised in a certain faith are unlikely to abandon their faith just because other people don't like it. At most, there is more distrust than there was before.

What a personal attack is likely to achieve, is that the individuals feel rejected; not accepted or liked; unfairly treated; degraded; dishonoured; or humiliated. Therefore, they are much less likely to consider the criticism seriously either, or do something about it, simply and only because they feel mistreated by the critic. In that case, the criticism cannot have much effect of any sort, except that the critic has ventilated a criticism which gets people's backs up. And if that is the case, then the critics might get the kind of nasty feedback which they weren't looking for.

If it is not actually clear what the person ''does'', or what he is ''really saying'', the criticism may miss the mark (by concentrating clearly and only on observation of what the individual as a matter of fact ''does'' or ''says'', it is less likely, that the criticism will be misplaced, confused or misinterpreted; it is less likely, that the person being criticized is being misunderstood). It would be unfair and unjust, not to say irrelevant, to criticize people for something that they have not actually done. It would be a false accusation.

Inversely, if the individuals are respected with a bit of humour, and due credit is given to their positive intentions as human beings, it is vastly more likely that the criticism will be understood, and taken seriously. And if the criticism is clearly directed only to "what people actually do" that is wrong, instead of "who they are", it creates possibilities, options and choices for doing something different and better. They can't change who they are, but they can change their actions. Because people's sense of dignity is secure in this case, they are better able to respond to the criticism, and indeed do something about it.

Of course, the critics may just want to provoke or vent a bit of hostility, but it might backfire, because the people criticized may make a nasty response. The nasty response may "prove" to the critics, that the criticism was justified, but the critics have brought this on themselves, they have produced their own nastiness. It is easy to do, but may be difficult to live with. In the process, the whole point of the criticism may be lost - all that happens is, that there is a quarrel between people who just vent their hostility. This is very unlikely to produce any solution that all concerned can live with.

The basic psychological rule of criticism assumes that people want to use criticism to achieve an improvement, usually "in good faith" (bona fide). It assumes the critic has a positive intention in making the criticism. The rule may not make much sense, if there is an all-out war going on, where the opposition is just trying to destroy and discredit you as much as possible, using absolutely any means they can find. Nevertheless, it is still possible to respond by attacking what the opponents actually ''do'', not ''who they are''. That way, the critic cannot be accused of unfair or prejudiced treatment of others.

Application

The basic rule is not always easy to apply.

It may be difficult to have respect for somebody who is the target of criticism, especially if there is a history of grievances.

It may be that it ''seems'' as though people are being respected, but in reality (if you understand the full meaning) they are being ''disrespected''. It might look formally like they are treated as equals, but in reality (informally speaking, practically and substantively) they are being denigrated.

It may be difficult to consider the action which is being criticized, in its own right, ''separately'' from the person ("only you could do something awful like this to me").

Consequently, psychologists often recommend that before a criticism is being stated to a person, the critic should try to get into rapport with the person being criticized ("get in sync" with the other person, "on the same wavelength"). If that is not possible (because they are enemies), the best thing may be, not to express the criticism at all, or get a mediator. It may take considerable strategizing in order to find a way of making a criticism, so that it "really hits home". Rather than "shooting their mouth off", it may be wise if people say nothing, until the right time and place arrives to make the criticism.

One problem at the ''receiving'' end is, that a criticism may be taken more seriously than it really merits, or that it is taken "too personally", even although that was not the intention of the critic. Criticisms are often voiced without knowing exactly what the response will be. It may be, that this problem cannot be entirely removed; the best one can do, is to judge, on the basis of experience, what would be the most likely effect of the criticism, and communicate the criticism as well as one can.

Another sort of problem is the limited attention span of individuals. To express a criticism may require detailed explanation or clarification; it presupposes that the knowledge exists to understand what it is about, and that people are willing to listen. That takes time, and the time may not be available, or people are reluctant to take the time. This can get in the way of the mutual respect required. It may be possible to overcome this problem, only by formulating the criticism as briefly as possible, and communicate it in a form which takes the least time to understand it. Failing that, people must "make time" to discuss the criticism. It can take considerable effort to create the situation in which the criticism will be "heard".

Exception to the rule

The exception to the basic psychological rule consists of cases where, it is argued, the individuals and their behaviours ''cannot be distinguished''. This would be the case, for example, if the criticism itself consisted of "being there" (intruding or tresspassing), or "not being there" (non-response). It can become a police matter. For example, when people voice their criticisms in a public demonstration, the police may decide to intervene, if the protest involves actions which violate the laws of the land.

In certain circumstances, the normal treatment of fellow human beings obviously does not apply, or no longer applies.

An example would be a criminal who treats rules with contempt, somebody who is insane, or a terrorist plotting arbitrary violence. Normally, once people are convicted of a crime, or for terrorism, they are no longer regarded as being entitled to ordinary consideration, at least not until their punishment is completed. They lose respect. In a war situation, people may be shot on sight, regardless of how they are behaving.

One "trick" in criticism, which many liberal people regard as dishonest and unfair, consists of the criminalization of criticism. Here, people try to make out, that particular criticism is not allowed, even although there exists no rule or law which ''actually says'' that the criticism is not allowed. Often this criminalization approach implies, that people believe, that individuals and their behaviours ''should not'' be separated - i.e. they should stick to a role, and not step out of it.

For example, a parent, a teacher or a person in authority believes that the young persons they are dealing with "ought to behave themselves" and "hold their tongue", because they are children. "Behaving themselves" means, that the young persons should not criticize, even if they could do so. At issue here is, who should respect whom, and why, as well as how the right to criticize can be earned. People normally distinguish between what can be expected or required of a child, and what can be expected or required from an adult.

Inversely, there are always people who deliberately seek for "loopholes" in the ordinary rules and channels for criticism, in order to make a criticism which, although strictly not illegal, has a malicious intention, or offends the target of the criticism. That can cause the ordinary consideration which people have for others to be abandoned. What is legitimate and illegitimate criticism is not always easy to establish, and there are usually "grey areas" in the law of the land. It is rarely possible to makes rules for every detail of what people may or may not do. The law itself can also be contested with criticism, if it is perceived as unfair. Nevertheless the courts usually draw the line somewhere.

When Theodor W. Adorno, a founder of Critical Theory, published a study with his colleagues on ''The Authoritarian Personality'' in 1954, it had at first an enormous intellectual impact. Later, however, academics rejected the approach as unscientific, and as not objective.

Learning to criticize

The ability to criticize is something which rarely occurs naturally, it has to be learnt. To learn to criticize, requires several kinds of qualities:

Usually, these qualities are learnt most easily through practical experience with try-outs, where people have a dialogue (or debate) of some kind, and give each other feedback on how they are doing. Often, teachers can design assignments specifically to stimulate students to acquire these qualities. But the facility for critical thought usually requires some personal initiative, the willingness "to do what it takes." There are plenty "lazy critics", but to be a good critic takes a lot of work. The lazy critic is soon forgotten, but a good criticism is remembered for years, or even decades. Some criticisms are so profound that they are remembered for hundreds of years.

Balance

With criticism it is always important to keep things in proportion, neither overdoing things, nor being too timid. These requires an ability to relativize things, and a level-headed approach.

People can be too critical, but they can also be insufficiently critical. To orient oneself realistically in the world, in order to achieve success in what one does, it is important to strike a good balance: to be neither excessively critical nor completely uncritical.

People who are ''too critical'', focus only on the downside or limitation of things - they run into the problem that others perceive them as being "too negative", and lacking a "constructive attitude". If there is too much criticism, it gets in the way of getting anything done - people are just "anti", but "it does not lead anywhere".

People who are ''uncritical'', however, are often regarded as naive and superficial ("suckers"); they lack discernment, they are prone to being deceived and tricked, because they readily believe all kinds of things, which they should not accept just like that, for their own good. If they thought more critically, they would not give in so easily to what others say or do. The idea here is that "one should not be so open-minded that one's brains fall out."

An important reason why balanced criticism is desirable is, that if things get totally out of proportion, the critics or their targets can lose their balance themselves. Criticism can wreak havoc, and therefore people have to know how to handle it from both ends. If the criticism is balanced, it is more likely to be successful.

Effect on others

When psychologists analyze the effect of criticism on others, they are concerned with how people respond to criticism (cognitively and emotionally), and how criticism can influence the way people are relating.

Positive and negative effects

When people criticize, it can have a fruitful, enriching and constructive effect, because new ideas and viewpoints are generated in trying to solve a problem. Suddenly, people have the benefit of ideas which they did not think of before, themselves.

People can also be very hurt by criticisms, when they experience the criticism as a personal attack. Psychologists concerned with human communication, such as therapists, therefore often recommend that people should choose the right words to express their criticism. The same criticism can be raised in different ways, some more successful than others.

Formulation

If people formulate their criticism in the right way, it is more likely that other people will accept it. If the criticism is badly expressed, people might reject it, not because it is wrong in itself, but because they do not like being talked to in that way. Even if the content of a criticism is quite valid, the form in which it is expressed may be so bad, that the valid point being made is never accepted. The ''content'' may be something that people can work out on their own, but the ''form'' concerns the social relationship between people.

Feedback fallacy

The terms "criticism" and "feedback" are often confused, where people think that criticism is a "negative response" and feedback is a "positive response". But such an interpretation is a fallacy. Feedback can be positive or negative, and so can criticism. What is true is that they can be mistaken for each other.

For example, an inexperienced person, who handles a machine with lethal danger to himself and others, can be criticized by another person who tells him "you are doing it wrong, and you should stop what you are doing immediately". This looks like an example of negative feedback. In reality, if the criticism was not made in time, people might die. If the same criticism was said "in a nice way" ("could you please consider withdrawing from your activity, and use your energies more productively elsewhere?"), it might not prompt the inexperienced person to stop.

The term "feedback" is often used instead of criticism, because "feedback" sounds more neutral, polite or positive, while criticism seems to be about "finding fault". A certain language may be used, because there are issues of authority and obedience ("who has to follow whom"), as well as the need for cooperative teamwork to get a job done ("constructive collegial attitude"). The question is often "who controls the feedback", "who is allowed to criticize", "who owns the problem" and "who is to do something about the problem". It may be that managers educate employees in a certain language, in order to get them to see things in a way that is productive for the enterprise.

Criticism is not necessarily feedback, because it can be ''both'' the initiative of a "feed" ''and'' the response of a "feed-back". Inversely, feedback is not necessarily criticism, because the feedback response could just consist e.g. of a compliment or a "yes" or "no" ("is that all the feedback I get?"). Feedback is not intrinsically positive; and telling somebody how they are doing need not involve any criticism. Criticism and feedback are really two different things, with some overlap ("critical feedback" or "critical response"). If feedback comments (positive or negative) and criticism are treated as if they are exactly the same thing, usually something is being hidden, suppressed or denied.

Quality

Especially educators, but also e.g. lawyers, managers and politicians are very concerned with the ''quality'' of criticisms. People might raise all kinds of objections and criticisms, but how good are they? Criticisms can be just "noise". They can also be a nuisance if they are misdirected, they get in the way of getting things done.

A good criticism

Ideally, a criticism should be:

In this way, nobody can deny the appropriateness of the criticism, but also, people can digest it, and everybody knows exactly what has to be done about it. In that case, it is more likely that the criticism is taken seriously. Not all criticisms have all these features, but if one or more of them is missing, it is more likely that the criticism will fail to achieve the result intended. Almost all guidelines for criticism mention these six points, although in particular contexts their meaning may be more exactly specified (for example, what it means "to communicate a criticism well" can vary according to the given circumstances).

Lousy criticism

Logically, there are just as many ways to get a criticism wrong as to get the criticism right.

The main effect of lousy criticism is usually that, rather than clarifying things, it becomes disorienting or confusing to people. Therefore, lousy criticism is usually regarded as unhelpful, or as an unwanted distraction getting in the way of things. The only thing a lousy criticism achieves is to make it clear that somebody has an objection (although the objection is not well-taken).

Techniques of constructive criticism

Techniques of constructive criticism aim to improve the behavior or the behavioral results of a person, while consciously avoiding personal attacks and blaming. This kind of criticism is carefully framed in language acceptable to the target person, often acknowledging that the critics themselves could be wrong. Insulting language and hostile language are avoided, and phrases are used like like "I feel..." and "It's my understanding that..." and so on. Constructive critics try to stand in the shoes of the person being criticized, and consider what things would look like from their perspective.

Giving and getting the message

Some people are not open to any criticism at all, even constructive criticism. Also, there is an art to truly constructive criticism: being well-intentioned is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for constructively criticizing, since one can have good intentions but poor delivery ("I don't know why my girlfriend keeps getting mad when I tell her to stop with the fries already; I'm just concerned about her weight"), or egocentric intentions but appropriate delivery ("I'm sick of my subordinate coming in late for work, so I took her aside and we had a long, compassionate talk about her work-life balance. I think she bought it."). As the name suggests, the consistent and central notion is that the criticism must have the aim of constructing, scaffolding, or improving a situation, something which is generally obstructed by hostile language or personal attacks.

People can sometimes be afraid to express a criticism, or afraid to be criticized. Criticism can "press all the wrong buttons." The threat of criticism can be sufficient to silence people, or cause them to stay away. So self-confidence can play a big role in criticism - the confidence to criticize, and the confidence to face criticism. If people's emotions are not properly considered, criticism can fail to succeed, even although it is well-intentioned, or perfectly sensible. Hence criticism is often considered an "art", because it involves human insight into "what one can say and cannot say" in the given situation.

Hamburger method

One style of constructive criticism employs the "hamburger method", in which each potentially harsh criticism (the "meat") is surrounded by compliments (the "buns"). The idea is to help the person being criticized feel more comfortable, and assure the person that the critic's perspective is not entirely negative. This is a specific application of the more general principle that criticism should be focused on maintaining healthy relationships, and be mindful of the positive as well as the negative.

Psychopathology of criticism

The psychopathology of criticism refers to the study of unhealthy forms of criticism, and of unhealthy kinds of response to criticism. Psychologists often associate these with particular categories of mental disorders, especially personality disorders, as classified in the U.S. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (this manual is also used in other countries, although the forms of personality disorders can be somewhat different in different countries, reflecting ethnic differences and differences in social systems).

To understand pathological criticism and pathological responses to criticism, it is often not sufficient to see the individuals concerned in isolation - they should be placed in the total context in which the criticism or the response to it occurs. Particular situations can "bring out" the "bad side" of people, which in the normal run of events would not occur. Pathological criticism occurs especially in situations of intense conflict or competition, where the normal internal and external controls on people's behaviour begin to break down. Not just personal change but also a "change of scene" may be required to get rid of the disorder.

Anti-psychiatry movement and criticism

In the anti-psychiatry movement, the issue is raised of whether the problem of unhealthy criticism, and unhealthy responses to criticisms, is really solved simply by calling it a "disease" (or "abuse" or "addiction").

Confronted with unhealthy criticism or unhealthy responses to criticism, it may be unwise to get scared, and it may be unnecessary to run to the doctor straightaway. It may be sufficient to talk it out, even if it is not the most pleasant discussion. If people are simply labelled "ill", they get away with behaviour that, arguably, they ought to be taking responsibility for, themselves. It should not be too easily assumed that people are incapable of making conscious choices about their own behaviour, unless they are deranged (crazy), in great pain, extraordinarily confused, heavily intoxicated, or in some way trapped or locked down (see also political abuse of psychiatry).

What is the point of criticism?

The issue of the "point of criticism" concerns why there should be criticism at all, why criticism is relevant at all (the ultimate reason for being of criticism).

Not a good thing, there is no point

Not all people believe that criticism is a good thing, and they prefer to go through life without getting involved in any criticism, or at any rate, they ''try to avoid'' getting involved in any criticism. This is not necessarily a sign of cowardice, or neutrality ("playing chicken"), because:

A lifestyle without any criticism can ordinarily be difficult to achieve; it requires agility; but it is possible. However, usually people do have to deal with criticisms at some point or other. They might have to "face the music" sometime, and confront something, whether they like it or not. That is because people have different interests, needs, requirements and values, and they may clash. Decisions have to be made, and "you can't please everybody."

So, ordinarily, the question is more one of keeping the amount of criticism within bounds, to a tolerable level one can handle. That is often easily done, simply by staying out of situations that prompt criticism. It is less easily done,

if people are in a strange environment, where they don't know the rules - in that case, it can be easy to bump into a criticism inadvertently.

if there are a lot of critics around, who are difficult to avoid.

if the problem situation is such, that criticisms just have to be expressed - because there is no other way.

A good thing, there is a point

Inversely, there are also people who think that criticism is very valuable, necessary and a good thing, for example, because:

See also

{| |

An Experiment in Criticism

Anti-Americanism

Art criticism

Biopsychiatry controversy

Children's literature criticism

Chiropractic controversy and criticism

Complaint

Conjecture (textual criticism)

Connoisseur

Controversy

Critic

Critical approaches to Hamlet

Critical Philosophy

Critical theory (Frankfurt School)

Critical theory

Critical thinking

Critical vocabulary

Criticism and sonata form

Criticism of (disambiguation)

Criticism of advertising

Criticism of American foreign policy

Criticism of Amnesty International

Criticism of Buddhism

Criticism of capitalism

Criticism of college and university rankings (North America)

Criticism of communism

Criticism of concordats

Criticism of Conservative Judaism

Criticism of desktop Linux

Criticism of eBay

Criticism of Family Guy

|

Criticism of fractional reserve banking

Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina

Criticism of government

Criticism of Greenpeace

Criticism of Hadith

Criticism of Hinduism

Criticism of Holocaust denial

Criticism of Islam

Criticism of Jainism

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

Criticism of Jesus

Criticism of Jimbo Wales

Criticism of Lee Myung-bak

Criticism of libertarianism

Criticism of Linux

Criticism of Mormon sacred texts

Criticism of Mormonism

Criticism of Moses

Criticism of Mother Teresa

Criticism of Osama bin Laden

Criticism of Pope John Paul II

Criticism of sport utility vehicles

Criticism of Tamil Brahmins

Criticism of the Book of Mormon

Criticism of the Catholic Church

Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration

Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol

|

Criticism of the National Health Service

Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance

Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

Criticism of the Space Shuttle program

Criticism of the World Trade Organization

Criticism of the World Trade Organization

Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism

Criticism of Ultima Online

Criticism of Western culture

Criticism of Wikipedia community

Criticism of Wikipedia

Criticism of Windows XP

Criticism of Yahoo!

Criticisms of anarchism

Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism

Criticisms of anti-scientific viewpoints

Criticisms of Cargill

Criticisms of communist party rule

Criticisms of electoralism

Criticisms of electoralism

Criticisms of globalization

Criticisms of Marxism

Criticisms of McDonald's

Criticisms of neoclassical economics

Criticisms of socialism

Criticisms of the labour theory of value

Criticisms of welfare

Critique of Pure Reason

Critique

Development criticism

|

Ecocriticism

Feminist literary criticism

Film criticism

Global warming controversy

Historical criticism

Jon Stewart's 2009 criticism of CNBC

Journal of Higher Criticism

Literary Criticism (UIL)

Literary criticism in Iran

Literary criticism

Materialism and Empirio-criticism

Music journalism

New Criticism

Objections to evolution

Paranoiac-critical method

Philosophy & Social Criticism

Protest

Psychological biblical criticism

Samuel Johnson's literary criticism

School of Criticism and Theory

Schopenhauer's criticism of the proofs of the parallel postulate

Scientology controversy

Social criticism

Textual criticism

The Frontiers of Criticism

The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

Theatre criticism

Timeline of Shakespeare criticism

Truman Capote Award for Literary Criticism

Unit for Criticism and Interpretive Theory

Yale Journal of Criticism

| |}

References

External links

What "Critical" means in "Critical Thinking" by Donald Jenner

Want to know more about Critic? Click TikusCCT

Category:Criticism Category:Social psychology Category:Philosophy Category:Literary concepts

bar:Kritik ca:Crític cs:Kritika da:Kritik de:Kritik es:Crítica fa:نقدگرایی ko:평론가 hi:समालोचना hr:Kritika it:Critica mk:Критика nl:Kritiek ja:評論家 pl:Krytyka ru:Критика sq:Kritika simple:Critic sl:Kritik fi:Arvostelu sv:Kritik ta:விமர்சனம் ur:تنقید

Terence Francis Eagleton FBA (born 22 February 1943, Salford) is a British literary theorist and critic, who is regarded as one of Britain's most influential living literary critics. Eagleton currently serves as Distinguished Professor of English Literature at the Lancaster University, and as a former Visiting Professor at the National University of Ireland, Galway.

Formerly Eagleton was Thomas Warton Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford (1992–2001) and John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester until 2008. In the Fall 2009 semester, Dr Eagleton returned to the University of Notre Dame as a Distinguished Visitor in the Department of English.

He has written more than forty books, including ''Literary Theory: An Introduction'' (1983); ''The Ideology of the Aesthetic'' (1990), and ''The Illusions of Postmodernism'' (1996).

Professor Eagleton delivered Yale University's 2008 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in March 2010, titled ''The God Debate''. He gave the 2010 Richard Price Memorial Lecture at the historically radical Newington Green Unitarian Church, speaking on "The New Atheism and the War on Terror".

Early years

Eagleton grew up in a working-class Irish Catholic family in Salford, England, with roots in County Galway. His mother's side of the family had strong republican sympathies. He served as an altar boy at a local Carmelite convent where he was responsible for escorting novice nuns taking their vows, a role referred to in the title of his memoir ''The Gatekeeper''.

Education and academia

He was educated at De La Salle College, a Roman Catholic grammar school in Salford. He later attended Trinity College, Cambridge, where he earned both his M.A. and Ph.D..

He became a Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge. Having spent some years at Oxford at Wadham College, Linacre College and St Catherine's College, he was John Edward Taylor Professor of Cultural Theory at the University of Manchester until he was forcibly retired in 2008.

Career

At Cambridge, Eagleton was a student of the left-wing literary critic Raymond Williams. He began his literary studies with the 19th and 20th centuries, then conformed to the stringent academic Marxism of the 1970s. He then published an attack on his mentor Williams's relation to the Marxist tradition in the pages of the ''New Left Review'', in the mode of the French critic Louis Althusser. During the 1960s, he became involved with the left-wing Catholic group ''Slant'', authoring a number of theological articles (including ''A Marxist Interpretation of Benediction''), as well as a book ''Towards a New Left Theology''. His most recent publications suggest a renewed interest in theological themes. Another significant theoretical influence on Eagleton is psychoanalysis. He has been an advocate of Slavoj Žižek's work.

Published thought

Theory

''Literary Theory: an Introduction'' (1983, revised 1996), probably his best-known work, traces the history of the study of texts, from the Romantics of the nineteenth century to the postmodernists of the later twentieth century. Eagleton's thought remains firmly rooted in the Marxist tradition; he has also produced critical work on such more recent modes of thought as structuralism, Lacanian analysis, and deconstruction. As his memoir ''The Gatekeeper'' demonstrates, Eagleton's Marxism is far from a merely theoretical pursuit. He was active in both the International Socialists and Workers' Socialist League whilst in Oxford. He continues to provide political commentary for publications such as the ''New Statesman'', ''Red Pepper'' and ''The Guardian''.

''After Theory'' (2003) represents a kind of about-face: an indictment of current cultural and literary theory, and what Eagleton regards as the bastardisation of both. He does not, however, conclude that the interdisciplinary study of literature and culture that comprises Theory is without merit. In fact, Eagleton argues that such a merging is effective in opening cultural study to a wider range of significant topics. His indictment instead centers on "relativism"—theorists' and postmodernity's rejection of absolutes. He concludes that an absolute does exist: Every person lives in a body that cannot be owned because nothing was done to acquire it, and nothing (besides suicide) can be done to be rid of it. Our bodies and their subsequent deaths provide the absolute around which humankind can focus its actions.

Religion and Football

In October 2006, Eagleton produced a critique of Richard Dawkins's ''The God Delusion'' in the ''London Review of Books''. Eagleton begins by questioning Dawkins's methodology and understanding: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the ''Book of British Birds'', and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology". Eagleton further writes, "Nor does [Dawkins] understand that because God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us." He concludes by suggesting Dawkins has not been attacking organised faith so much as a sort of rhetorical straw man: "Apart from the occasional perfunctory gesture to ‘sophisticated’ religious believers, Dawkins tends to see religion and fundamentalist religion as one and the same. This is not only grotesquely false; it is also a device to outflank any more reflective kind of faith by implying that it belongs to the coterie and not to the mass. The huge numbers of believers who hold something like the theology I outlined above can thus be conveniently lumped with rednecks who murder abortionists and malign homosexuals."

Although many of his texts include aspects of philosophical debate, Eagleton himself states, "Perhaps I should add that I am not myself a philosopher, a fact which I am sure some of my reviewers will point out in any case."

During the 2010 Football World Cup, Eagleton described the mass following of football as an impediment to political change. He wrote in ''The Guardian'', "for the most part football these days is the opium of the people, not to speak of their crack cocaine. Its icon is the impeccably Tory, slavishly conformist Beckham." Eagleton concluded: "Nobody serious about political change can shirk the fact that the game has to be abolished. And any political outfit that tried it on would have about as much chance of power as the chief executive of BP has in taking over from Oprah Winfrey."

Terry Lectures

In April 2008 Eagleton delivered Yale University's Terry Lectures with the title of his subject being, ''Faith and Fundamentalism: Is belief in Richard Dawkins necessary for salvation?'' constituting a continuation of the critique he had begun in ''The London Review of Books''. Introducing his first lecture with an admission of ignorance of both theology and science Eagleton goes on to affirm, "All I can claim in this respect, alas, is that I think I may know just about enough theology to be able to spot when someone like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens -- a couplet I shall henceforth reduce for convenience to the solitary signifier ''Ditchkins'' -- is talking out of the back of his neck."

Eagleton's Terry lectures were published in 2009, in ''Reason, Faith, and Revolution''.

Criticism of Martin and Kingsley Amis

In late 2007, a critique of Martin Amis included in the introduction to a 2007 edition of Eagleton's book ''Ideology'' was widely reprinted in the British press. In it, Eagleton took issue with Amis' widely-quoted writings on "Islamism", directing particular attention to one specific passage:

Eagleton criticised Amis for the passage, and expressed surprise as to its source, stating: ''"[these are] not the ramblings of a British National Party thug ... but the reflections of Martin Amis, leading luminary of the English metropolitan literary world."'' Eagleton drew a connection between Amis and his father (the novelist Kingsley Amis). The younger writer, Eagleton went on to write, had learnt more from his father — whom Eagleton described as "a racist, anti-Semitic boor, a drink-sodden, self-hating reviler of women, gays and liberals" and "reactionary" — than merely "how to turn a shapely phrase". Eagleton went on to argue that ''"there is something rather stomach-churning at the sight of those such as Amis and his political allies, champions of a civilisation that for centuries has wreaked untold carnage throughout the world, shrieking for illegal measures when they find themselves for the first time on the sticky end of the same treatment"''.

The essay became a ''cause célèbre'' in British literary circles. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a commentator for ''The Independent'', wrote an editorial about the affair; Amis responded via open letter, calling Eagleton "an ideological relict" who would be "unable to get out of bed in the morning without the dual guidance of God and Karl Marx". Amis said that the view Eagleton attributed to him as his considered opinion was in fact his spoken description of a tempting urge, in relation to the need to "raise the price" of terrorist actions.

Eagleton's personal comments on Amis' father, the novelist Kingsley Amis, prompted a further response from Kingsley's widow, the novelist Elizabeth Jane Howard. Howard wrote to ''The Daily Telegraph'', noting that for a supposed "anti-semitic homophobe", it was peculiar that the only guests at the Howard-Amis nuptials should have been either Jewish or gay. As Howard explained, "Kingsley was never a racist, nor an anti-Semitic boor. Our four great friends who witnessed our wedding were three Jews and one homosexual." In a later interview, Howard added: 'I have never even heard of this man Eagleton. But he seems to be a rather lethal combination of a Roman Catholic and a Marxist ... He strikes me as like a spitting cobra: if you get within his range he'll unleash some poison.'

Eagleton defended his comments about Martin and Kingsley Amis by article in ''The Guardian'', claiming that the main bone of contention — the substance of Amis' remarks and views — had been lost amid the media furore.

Critical reactions

William Deresiewicz wrote of ''After Theory'', Eagleton's book, as follows: : "[I]s it that hard to explain what Eagleton's up to? The prolificness, the self-plagiarism, the snappy, highly consumable prose and, of course, the sales figures: Eagleton wishes for capitalism's demise, but as long as it's here, he plans to do as well as he can out of it. Someone who owns three homes shouldn't be preaching self-sacrifice, and someone whose careerism at Oxbridge was legendary shouldn't be telling interviewers of his longstanding regret at having turned down a job at the Open University."

Novelist and critic David Lodge, writing in the May 2004 ''New York Review of Books'' on Theory and ''After Theory'', concluded: :Some of Theory's achievements are genuine and permanent additions to knowledge, or intellectual self-knowledge. Eagleton is quite right to assert that we can never go back to a state of pre-Theory innocence about the transparency of language or the ideological neutrality of interpretation ... But like all fashions it was bound to have a limited life of novelty and vitality, and we are now living through its decadence without any clear indication of what will supersede it. Theory has, in short, become boringly predictable to many people who were once enthusiastic about it, and that ''After Theory'' is most interesting when its focus is furthest from its nominal subject is perhaps evidence that Terry Eagleton is now bored by it too.

Publications

''The New Left Church'' [as Terence Eagleton] (1966)

''Shakespeare and Society

''Exiles And Émigrés: Studies in Modern Literature (1970)

''The Body as Language : outline of a new left theology'' (1970)

''Criticism & Ideology'' (1976)

''Marxism and Literary Criticism'' (1976)

''Walter Benjamin, or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism (1981)

''The Rape of Clarissa: Writing, Sexuality, and Class Struggle in Samuel Richardson''. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982

''Literary Theory: An Introduction''. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983

''The Function of Criticism'' (1984)

''Saint Oscar'' (a play about Oscar Wilde)

''Saints and Scholars (a novel, 1987)

''Raymond Williams: Critical Perspectives'' (editor) Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1989.

''The Significance of Theory'' (1989)

''The Ideology of the Aesthetic'' (1990)

''Nationalism, Colonialism, and Literature''. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1990

''Ideology: An Introduction'' (1991/2007)

''Wittgenstein: The Terry Eagleton Script, The Derek Jarman Film'' (1993)

''Literary Theory''. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996

''The Illusions of Postmodernism'' (1996)

"Heathcliff and the Great Hunger" (1996)

''Marx'' (1997)

"Crazy John and the Bishop and Other Essays on Irish Culture" (1998)

''The Idea of Culture'' (2000)

''The Gatekeeper: A Memoir'' (2001)

''The Truth about the Irish'' (2001)

''Sweet Violence: The Idea of the Tragic '' (2002)

''After Theory'' (2003)

''Figures of dissent: Reviewing Fish, Spivak, Zizek and Others'' (2003)

''The English Novel: An Introduction'' (2004)

''Holy Terror'' (2005)

''The Meaning of Life'' (2007)

''How to Read a Poem'' (2007)

''Trouble with Strangers: A Study of Ethics'' (2008)

''Literary Theory''. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008

''Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate'' (2009)

''On Evil'' (2010)

''Why Marx Was Right'' (2011)

'' The Event of Literature'' (2012), Yale University Press

References

External links

"High Priest of Lit Crit", ''The Guardian'' February 2, 2002 – profile on the publication of his memoir, ''The Gatekeeper''

Some articles by Eagleton from the ''London Review of Books''

Article on socialism

"The roots of terror"

Tim Adams, "The Armchair Revolutionary" (interview), ''The Observer'', 16 December 2007

Dawkins/Eagleton knol by Klaus Rohde

Jonathan Derbyshire, "The Task of the Critic: Terry Eagleton in Dialogue" (interview), ''New Statesman'', March 11, 2010

Terry Eagleton, "In Praise of Marx" (article), ''The Chronicle Review'', April 10, 2011

Category:1943 births Category:Academics of the University of Manchester Category:British Marxists Category:British Roman Catholics Category:British socialists Category:British people of Irish descent Category:Fellows of Jesus College, Cambridge Category:Academics of Lancaster University Category:Fellows of Linacre College, Oxford Category:British literary critics Category:Literary theorists Category:Living people Category:Marxist theorists Category:Socialist Workers Party (UK) members Category:People from Salford, Greater Manchester Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Cambridge Category:British Literary theorists Category:Fellows of the British Academy Category:Gifford Lecturers Category:People self-identifying as alcoholics

ar:تيري إيجلتون az:Terri İqlton bg:Тери Игълтън ca:Terry Eagleton de:Terry Eagleton es:Terry Eagleton fa:تری ایگلتون fr:Terry Eagleton gl:Terry Eagleton it:Terry Eagleton he:טרי איגלטון lv:Terijs Īgltons ml:ടെറി ഈഗിൾടൺ ja:テリー・イーグルトン no:Terry Eagleton pl:Terry Eagleton pt:Terry Eagleton ru:Иглтон, Терри fi:Terry Eagleton tr:Terry Eagleton

name	Joel Osteen
birth name	Joel Scott Osteen
birth date	March 05, 1963
birth place	Houston, Texas
occupation	Pastor, Author, Televangelist
spouse
children	Jonathan, Alexandra
residency	Houston, Texas
employer	Lakewood Church
predecessor	John Osteen
term	October 3, 1999 – present
religion	Evangelical Charismatic
website	joelosteen.com
parents	John Osteen (father) Dolores (Dodie) Pilgrim Osteen (mother)
footnotes	}}

Joel Scott Osteen (born March 5, 1963) is an American author, televangelist, and the senior pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. His ministry reaches over seven million broadcast media viewers weekly in over 100 nations around the world.

Biography

Born in Houston, Texas, Osteen married Victoria L. Iloff on April 4, 1987. They have two children, Jonathan and Alexandra. Joel, son of John and Dolores (Dodie) Pilgrim, is one of five children. His older siblings, Paul, Lisa, and Tamara, and his younger sister, April, are also involved in full-time ministry. Joel's half-brother Justin does missionary work out of New York. Joel's father, John Osteen, a former Southern Baptist pastor who became Charismatic in the late 1950s, founded Lakewood Church on Mother's Day, 1959. Osteen's father developed Lakewood into a body of approximately 6,000 members with an active television ministry, conferences, missionary support and food distribution.

After 17 years producing the church's television program, Joel succeeded his father on October 3, 1999, as pastor of Lakewood Church. Joel had only preached once in his life, the week before his father's death. Today, Lakewood Church services, led by Pastor Joel Osteen, are seen in over 100 nations around the world. Joel Osteen's first book, ''Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential'', was released in October 2004. In December 2006, he was named one of the year's "Ten Most Fascinating People" by Barbara Walters. Former presidential candidate John McCain has described Osteen as "inspirational". Currently, Osteen and several Lakewood Church personnel travel across the nation, presenting programs in large arenas. The event, titled "A Night of Hope," includes worship music led by the church's music ministry, a testimony by Joel's mother Dodie and a sermon from Osteen. In 2007, the tour expanded to include stops in several other countries, including Canada, England, Northern Ireland and Israel. Osteen released his second book, titled ''Become a Better You: 7 Keys to Improving Your Life Every Day'' in October 2007, which also topped the New York Times Best Sellers List with a first printing of four million copies. Osteen told Larry King the new book will focus more on relationships and not getting stuck where we are in life. "Just my basic message of becoming all God's created you to be," he added. Osteen's popularity led to him being featured as one of ABC News' "10 Most Fascinating People of 2006", and was named "Most Influential Christian in America" in 2006 by ''The Church Report''.

Education

It has been widely reported that Osteen attended Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for a two year period without receiving a degree. Likewise, it has been reported that he has no higher level training in religious matters or Bible studies. In an appearance on ''Piers Morgan Tonight'' in January, 2011, Osteen mentioned that he had never attended seminary.

Preaching style

On the December 23, 2007, edition of ''Fox News Sunday'', host Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday brought up Osteen's lack of Scripture reference in his sermons, as well as his hesitancy to discuss sin as an integral part of life. Osteen responded: "And I am ultimately trying to do that, but I'm trying to teach people how to live their everyday lives, and so I do focus on it, probably not as much as some people would like." Osteen says that he chooses to focus on the goodness of God rather than sin. Osteen explains that he tries to teach Biblical principles in a simple way, emphasizing the power of love and a positive attitude.

Osteen's sermons and writings are sometimes reproached for their use of the concepts of prosperity theology, or the prosperity gospel, a belief that wealth and power are rewards for pious Christians.

Political and social views

On the January 26, 2011, edition of ''Piers Morgan Tonight'' on CNN, Osteen was asked whether he believes homosexuality is a sin: }}

In interview on Fox News in 2008 during the U.S. Presidential primary race, when discussing whether he thought that a Mormon was a Christian, Osteen indicated that he believed that they were. He further noted that he had not studied the religion.

Criticism

On October 14, 2007, ''60 Minutes'' ran a twelve minute segment on Osteen titled "Joel Osteen Answers his Critics" during which Reformed theologian Michael Horton critiques his message. Horton tells CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts that Osteen's method of teaching is "heresy."

See also

Charismatic movement

Christianity

Prosperity theology

Word Faith

References

External links

Official Joel Osteen Ministries

Category:1963 births Category:Living people Category:American self-help writers Category:Christian writers Category:American Pentecostals Category:American television evangelists Category:People from Houston, Texas Category:Christian creationists Category:American Christians Category:Pentecostal clergy

de:Joel Osteen el:Τζόελ Όστιν es:Joel Osteen fo:Joel Osteen fr:Joel Osteen ko:조엘 오스틴 he:ג'ואל אוסטין nl:Joel Osteen no:Joel Osteen pt:Joel Osteen fi:Joel Osteen

name	Mac Miller
background	solo_singer
alias	Most Dope, Easy Mac
birth name	Malcolm McCormick
birth date	January 19, 1992
birth place	Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
genre	Hip hop, hipster hop, electro hop
occupation	Rapper, producer, actor, songwriter
years active	2007 – present
label	Rostrum Records, Most Dope Entertainment
associated acts	Donelo, Wiz Khalifa, Beedie, The Ill Spoken, I.D. Labs
website	}}

Malcolm McCormick (born January 19, 1992), known by his stage name Mac Miller (previously Easy Mac), is an American rapper from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is signed to Rostrum Records and released his debut album ''Blue Slide Park'' on November 8, 2011.

Early life

Malcolm McCormick was born on January 19, 1992, the son of an architect and a photographer, and raised in the Point Breeze part of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His father is Christian and his mother is Jewish; Miller was raised Jewish and had a Bar Mitzvah. Before attending Taylor Allderdice High School, Miller attended Winchester Thurston School. In high school, Miller decided to focus on his hip-hop career, later noting, "Once I hit 15, I got real serious about it and it changed my life completely ... I used to be into sports, play all the sports, go to all the high school parties. But once I found out hip-hop is almost like a job, that's all I did." Miller, a self-taught musician, plays piano, guitar, drums, and bass.

Career

Before embarking on a solo career, Miller was part of rap group The Ill Spoken together with fellow Pittsburgh rapper, Beedie. The Ill Spoken released the mixtape ''How High'' in 2008. Prior to changing his name to Mac Miller, he was known as EZ Mac and released the mixtape ''But My Mackin Ain't Easy'' in 2007 at 15 years old. In 2009 Mac Miller released two mixtapes ''The Jukebox: Prelude to Class Clown'' and ''The High Life'' before getting signed to Rostrum Records.

In early 2010, Miller signed with Rostrum Records. Rostrum president Benjy Grinberg met Miller while recording with Wiz Khalifa at ID Labs. Although Grinberg started giving Miller advice, he didn't show any interest in getting involved with his career until the artist began work on the ''K.I.D.S.'' mixtape, when, as he later told HitQuarters, Grinberg "noticed a maturation in his sound and approach to his music." By that point Miller had started attracting interest from different record companies but chose Rostrum due to its location in his hometown and association with Wiz Khalifia. K.I.D.S. was released by the label in August 2010. The mixtape was inspired by the movie Kids. A significant breakthrough came in late 2010 when Miller embarked on his first "Incredibly Dope Tour", selling out at every location on the tour.

Miller's 5th release was a mixtape titled ''Best Day Ever''. The mixtape features his single "Donald Trump" and the hit songs "Wear My Hat", "BDE Bonus" and "All Around The World." The mixtape featured mainstream producers such as Just Blaze, 9th Wonder, and Chuck Inglish. On November 22, 2010 his first single "Knock Knock" premiered its video on YouTube.

On March 29, 2011, he released an EP called ''On And On And Beyond''. The six-track work was produced by Rostrum Records.

On July 5, 2011, Miller announced the title of his first album ''Blue Slide Park'' on his YouTube channel, set for a Fall release. In September 2011 it was revealed that Miller would release a mixtape titled ''92 Til Infinity'' hosted by DJ Jazzy Jeff prior to the release of ''Blue Slide Park''.

Prior to his 2011 national Blue Slide Park tour, Miller traveled Europe on his "Incredibly Dope Tour" visiting cities such as London, Manchester, and Amsterdam.

On October 14, 2011, Mac Miller released a 13 song mixtape called ''I Love Life, Thank You'' for reaching 1,000,000 followers on Twitter. It had features from Sir Michael Rocks of The Cool Kids, Talib Kweli, and Bun B.

On November 2011, ''Blue Slide Park'' debuted at number 1 on the ''Billboard'' 200 with first week sales of 144,000 copies.

On March 23, 2012, Mac Miller released his seventh mixtape called ''Macadelic''. He released "Loud" as a single off the mixtape as well as filiming a music video. Miller also released a video for "Thoughts From A Balcony".

Awards and honors

In 2009 at age 17, he made it to the final four in Rhyme Calisthenics, the MC competition at Shadow Lounge. In 2010, he won two awards at the Pittsburgh hip-hop awards. His video "Live Free" won video of the year and he also won Best Artist Under 21. In September 2011 Maroon 5 announced that Mac Miller will be featured on their remix of their top chart song "Moves Like Jagger". In 2011 Miller was one of eleven rappers featured in XXL magazine's Freshman Class of 2011. The video for the first single released from this mixtape, "Donald Trump", has reached over 53 million views on YouTube and Donald Trump himself, who is referenced on the song, acknowledged the video on the social networking site Twitter when it reached 20 million views stating "Who wouldn't be flattered?". He declared that Miller was the “new Eminem,” and stated “I am very proud of him.” Endorsements by Donald Trump helped Miller become increasingly more popular. The song also charted on iTunes debuting at #73 and peaking at #40, before Miller was signed to a major label. In 2011, his first TV appearance took place in the VH1 show Single Ladies; he played a fictionalized version of himself that succeeded in selling one of his mixtapes to one of the main characters. Also in 2011, he was a part of MTV Jams Fab Five artists.

Musical philosophy

Mac Miller includes Big L, Lauryn Hill, The Beastie Boys, Outkast, and A Tribe Called Quest among his influences. He also has a close relationship with fellow Pittsburgh rapper Wiz Khalifa, saying "Wiz has been a big brother to me with this music thing so far. Our relationship is beyond music. He really is just my homie, whether I will be making music or not."

Discography

;Studio albums

2011 ''Blue Slide Park''

;Extended Plays

2011 ''On And On And Beyond''

References

External links

Official Mac Miller Website

Category:1992 births Category:American Jews Category:Jewish rappers Category:Electro-hop musicians Category:Living people Category:Musicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Category:Rappers from Pennsylvania Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard

de:Mac Miller es:Mac Miller fr:Mac Miller hr:Mac Miller it:Mac Miller nl:Mac Miller ja:マック・ミラー no:Mac Miller pl:Mac Miller pt:Mac Miller ru:Мак Миллер simple:Mac Miller fi:Mac Miller sv:Mac Miller th:แม็ก มิลเลอร์

Consort	yes
name	Marie Antoinette of Austria
succession	Queen of France and Navarre
reign	10 May 1774 – 21 September 1792
spouse	Louis XVI of France
issue	Marie Thérèse, Duchess of Angoulême Louis Joseph, Dauphin of France Louis XVII Princess Sophie
house	House of Habsburg-Lorraine
father	Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor
mother	Empress Maria Theresa
birth date	November 02, 1755
birth place	Hofburg Palace, Vienna, Austria
death date	16 October 1793 (aged 37)
death place	Place de la Révolution, Paris, France
place of burial	Saint Denis Basilica, France
religion	Roman Catholic
date of burial	21 January 1815
full name	Maria Antonia Josephina Johanna
signature	Marie-AntoinetteSignature.png }}

Marie Antoinette ( or ; ; baptised Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna (or Maria Antonia Josephina Johanna); 2 November 1755 – 16 October 1793) was an Archduchess of Austria and the Queen of France and of Navarre. She was the fifteenth and penultimate child of Holy Roman Empress Maria Theresa and Holy Roman Emperor Francis I.

In April 1770, on the day of her marriage to Louis-Auguste, Dauphin of France, she subsequently became Dauphine of France. Marie Antoinette assumed the title of Queen of France and of Navarre when her husband, Louis XVI of France, ascended the throne upon the death of Louis XV in May 1774. After seven years of marriage, she gave birth to a daughter, Marie-Thérèse Charlotte, the first of four children.

Initially charmed by her personality and beauty, the French people generally came to dislike her, accusing "L'Autre-chienne" (a pun in French playing with the words "Autrichienne" meaning ''Austrian (woman)'' and "Autre-chienne" meaning ''Other bitch'') of being profligate and promiscuous, and of harboring sympathies for France's enemies, particularly Austria, her country of origin.

After the royal family's flight to Varennes, Louis XVI was deposed and the monarchy abolished on 21 September 1792; the royal family was subsequently imprisoned at the Temple Prison. Nine months after her husband's execution, Marie Antoinette was herself tried, convicted of treason, and executed by guillotine on 16 October 1793.

Even after her death, Marie Antoinette is often considered to be a part of popular culture and a major historical figure, being the subject of several books, films and other forms of media. Some academics and scholars have deemed her frivolous and superficial, and have attributed the start of the French Revolution to her; however, others have claimed that she was treated unjustly and that views of her ought be more sympathetic.

Early life

Maria Antonia of Austria was born on 2 November 1755 at the Hofburg Palace in Vienna, Austria; on the next day, she was baptised Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna (also known as Maria Antonia Josephina Johanna). She was the youngest daughter of Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor, and Maria Theresa, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, and ruler of the Habsburg dominions; her godparents were the King of Portugal and his wife. In her family, she was simply called Antonia. Described at her birth as "a small, but completely healthy Archduchess", she was also known at the Austrian court as Antonia, but more often as Madame Antoine, since French was commonly spoken in the Hofburg. After all, Viennese society itself was multilingual, with many able to speak German, French, Italian and/or Spanish.

The relaxed ambience of court life in the Hofburg, where it was possible to often deviate from protocol, was compounded by the private life which was developed by the Habsburgs even before Maria Antonia was born. In their private life, the family dressed in bourgeois attire, played games with non-royal children (they were, in fact, encouraged to play with such 'common' children by their parents), and were treated to gardens and menageries. She later attempted to recreate this atmosphere through her renovation of the Petit Trianon in France.

Maria Antonia had a simple and carefree childhood, especially in comparison to that of Louis XVI. She was never lonely, since she never had the chance to be alone. This was particularly evident in her relationship with her older sister, Maria Carolina: they were the two youngest girls, and shared the same governesses, first Countess Brandeis, then Countess Lerchenfeld, until 1767; Carolina once described her sister as someone she "loved extraordinarily".

The Imperial family was one that thoroughly enjoyed music. Antonia herself learned to play the harpsichord, spinet and clavichord, as well as the harp, taught by Gluck. During the family's musical evenings, she would sing French songs and Italian arias. She also excelled at dancing – an accomplishment often remarked by those who saw her, whether friendly or hostile, having been carefully trained in it since her early youth. She had an "exquisite" poise and a famously graceful deportment; Horace Walpole once quoted Virgil as to her gait, saying, "vera incessu patuit dea" (''she was in truth revealed to be a goddess by her step''). She also loved dolls as a young girl, as captured by a family portrait in which seven-year-old Antonia excitedly held up a fancy doll. Numerous dolls arrived at the Hofburg as soon as Marie Antoinette turned 13, wearing miniature versions of the ball gowns, afternoon dresses, and gold-trimmed gowns proposed for her.

Antonia's education was poor, or at least it lacked the rigorous in training as Louis XVI's; her handwriting, for instance, was sprawling and careless in form. It was not so much the teachers themselves, though, that made her education sub-par, but rather her lack of willingness to contribute intellectually to her lessons. Often, her tutors would finish the work themselves, out of fear of losing their positions. Under the guidance of Gluck, she excelled to some extent in her musical endeavors. She drew often; at ten, for example, she had drawn a good chalk likeness of her father. She learned Italian, from Metastasio, on top of the necessary French and German, as well as Austrian history and French history, though from an Austrian perspective. But while she flourished in her learning of Italian, her other languages proved to be a weak point. Conversations with her were stilted, and her ability to read and write German and French (the 'universal' language of Europe at this point in time) was undeniably poor.

By many accounts, her childhood was somewhat complex. On the one hand, her parents had instituted several innovations in court life which made Austria one of the most progressive courts in Europe. While certain court functions remained formal by necessity, the Emperor and Empress nevertheless presided over many basic changes in court life. This included allowing relaxations in the type of people who could come to court (a change which allowed people of merit, as well as birth, to rise rapidly in the hierarchy of imperial favor at court), relatively lax dress etiquette, and the abolition of certain antiquated court rituals, including one in which dozens of courtiers could be present in the Empress' bedchamber while she gave birth. The Empress disliked the ritual, and would eject courtiers from her rooms when she went into labor.

While she had an idyllic "private" life, her initial role in the political arena – and in her mother's main aim of alliance through marriage – was relatively small. Because there were so many other children who could be married off, Maria Antonia was sometimes neglected by her mother. As a result, she later described her relationship with her mother as one of awe-inspired fear. She also developed a mistrust of intelligent older women as a result of her mother's close relationship with the Archduchess Maria Christina, Duchess of Teschen, Marie Antoinette's older sister.

Marriage to Louis: 1770–1793

The events leading to her eventual betrothal to the Dauphin of France began in 1765, when her father, Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor, died of a stroke in August, leaving Maria Theresa to co-rule with her elder son and heir, the Emperor Joseph II. By that time, marriage arrangements for several of Maria Antonia's sisters had begun: the Archduchess Maria Josepha was betrothed to King Ferdinand of Naples, and one of the remaining eligible archduchesses was tentatively set to marry Don Ferdinand of Parma. The purpose of these marriages was to cement the various complex alliances that Maria Theresa had entered into in the 1750s due to the Seven Years' War, which included Parma, Naples, Russia, and more importantly Austria's traditional enemy, France. Without the Seven Years' War to "unite" the two countries briefly, the marriage of Maria Antonia and the Dauphin Louis-Auguste might not have occurred.

In 1767, a smallpox outbreak hit the family. Maria Antonia was one of the few who were immune to the disease because she already had had it at a young age. Her sister, Maria Josepha, came down with it after visiting the improperly sealed tomb of her sister-in-law (of the same name), and died quickly afterwards. This was not, however, due to her visit to the tomb; she must have been infected sometime before visiting the tomb, because the rash appeared only two days after her visit. Her mother, Maria Theresa, caught it and, though she survived, she suffered from the effects of the disease for the rest of her life. Her sister, Maria Elisabeth, caught it but survived. Her brother, Charles Joseph, and sister Maria Johanna, had already died of smallpox in 1761 and 1762 respectively.

This ultimately left 12-year-old Maria Antonia as the only potential bride left in the family for the 14-year-old Louis Auguste, who was also her second cousin once removed, through Leopold I. During the marriage negotiations, they lamented the crookedness of her teeth. Straightaway, a French doctor was called to perform some painful oral surgeries. Performed without anesthesia and requiring three long months to take, at last Marie Antoinette's smile, "very beautiful and straight", satisfied France. After painstaking work between the governments of France and Austria, the dowry was set at 200,000 crowns; as was the custom, portraits and rings were exchanged. Finally, Antonia was married by proxy on 19 April in the Church of the Augustine Friars, Vienna; her brother Ferdinand stood in as the bridegroom. She was also officially restyled as ''Marie Antoinette, Dauphine of France''. Through her father, Marie Antoinette became the second (after Margaret of Valois, the renowned Queen Margot) French queen ever to descend from Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici.

Marie Antoinette was officially handed over to her French relations on 7 May 1770, on an island on the Rhine River near Kehl. Chief among them were the comte de Noailles and his wife, the comtesse de Noailles, who had been appointed the Dauphine's Mistress of the Household by Louis XV. She met the King, the Dauphin Louis-Auguste, and the royal aunts (Louis XV's daughters, known as ''Mesdames''), one week later. Before reaching Versailles, she also met her future brothers-in-law, Louis Stanislas Xavier, comte de Provence; and Charles Philippe, comte d'Artois, who came to play important roles during and after her life. Later, she met the rest of the family, including her husband's youngest sister, Madame Élisabeth, who at the end of Marie Antoinette's life would become her closest and most loyal friend.

The ceremonial wedding of the Dauphin and Dauphine took place on 16 May 1770, in the Palace of Versailles, after which was the ritual bedding. It was assumed by custom that consummation of the marriage would take place on the wedding night. However, this did not occur, and the lack of consummation plagued the reputation of both Louis-Auguste and Marie Antoinette for seven years to come.

The initial reaction to the marriage between Marie Antoinette and Louis-Auguste was decidedly mixed. On the one hand, the Dauphine herself was popular among the people. Her first official appearance in Paris on 8 June 1773 at the Tuileries was considered by many royal watchers a resounding success, with a reported 50,000 people crying out to see her. People were easily charmed by her personality and beauty. She had fair skin, straw-blond hair, and deep blue eyes.

However, at Court the match was not so popular among the elder members of court due to the long-standing tensions between Austria and France, which had only recently been mollified. Many courtiers had actively promoted a marriage between the dauphin and various Saxon princesses instead. Behind her back, Mesdames called Marie Antoinette "l'Autrichienne", the "Austrian woman." (Later, on the eve of the Revolution, and as Marie Antoinette's unpopularity grew, ''l'Autrichienne'' was easily transformed into ''l'Autruchienne'', a pun making use of the words ''autruche'' "ostrich" and ''chienne'' "bitch".) Others accused her of trying to sway the king to Austria's thrall, destroying long-standing traditions (such as appointing people to posts due to friendship and not to peerage), and of laughing at the influence of older women at the royal court. Many other courtiers, such as the comtesse du Barry, had tenuous relationships with the Dauphine.

Her relationship with the comtesse du Barry was one which was important to rectify, at least on the surface, because Madame du Barry was the mistress of Louis XV, and thus had considerable political influence over the king. In fact, she had been instrumental ousting from power the duc de Choiseul, who had helped orchestrate the Franco-Austrian alliance as well as Marie Antoinette's own marriage. Louis XV's daughters, Mesdames, hated Mme du Barry due to her unsavory relationship with their father. With manipulative coaching, the aunts encouraged the Dauphine to refuse to acknowledge the favourite, which was considered by some to be a political blunder. After months of continued pressure from her mother and the Austrian minister, the comte de Mercy-Argenteau, Marie Antoinette grudgingly agreed to speak to Mme du Barry on New Year's Day 1772. Although the limit of their conversation was Marie Antoinette's banal comment to the royal mistress that, "there are a lot of people at Versailles today", Mme du Barry was satisfied and the crisis, for the most part, dissipated. There was, however, a further level of animosity from the view of the Mesdames raised by this situation – they felt somewhat 'betrayed' in their stance against du Barry. Later, Marie Antoinette became more polite to the comtesse, pleasing Louis XV, but also particularly her mother.

From the beginning, the Dauphine had to contend with constant letters from her mother, who wrote to her daughter regularly and who received secret reports from Mercy d'Argenteau on her daughter's behaviour. Marie Antoinette would write home in the early days saying that she missed her dear home. Though the letters were touching, in later years Marie Antoinette said she feared her mother more than she loved her. Her mother constantly criticized her for her inability to "inspire passion" in her husband, who rarely slept with her and had no interest in doing so, being more interested in his hobbies such as lock-making and hunting. The Empress went so far as saying directly to Marie Antoinette that she was no longer pretty, and had lost all her grace.

To make up for the lack of affection from her husband and the endless criticism of her mother, Marie Antoinette began to spend more on gambling and clothing, with cards and horse-betting, as well as trips to the city and new clothing, shoes, pomade and rouge. She was expected by tradition to spend money on her attire, so as to outshine other women at Court, being the leading example of fashion in Versailles (the previous queen, Maria Leszczyńska, had died in 1768, two years prior to Marie Antoinette's arrival).

Marie Antoinette also began to form deep friendships with various ladies in her retinue. Most noted were the sensitive and "pure" widow, the princesse de Lamballe, whom she appointed as Superintendent of her Household, and the fun-loving, down-to-earth Yolande de Polastron, duchesse de Polignac, who eventually formed the cornerstone of the Queen's inner circle of friends (''Société Particulière de la Reine''). The duchesse de Polignac later became the Governess of the royal children (''Gouvernante des Enfants de France''), and was a friend of both Marie Antoinette and Louis. The closeness of the Dauphine's friendship with these ladies, influenced by various popular publications which promoted such friendships, later caused accusations of lesbianism to be lodged against these women. Others taken into her confidence at this time included her husband's brother, the comte d'Artois; their youngest sister, Madame Élisabeth; her sister-in-law, the comtesse de Provence; and Christoph Willibald Gluck, her former music teacher, whom she took under her patronage upon his arrival in France.

On 27 April 1774, a week after the ''première'' of Gluck's opera, ''Iphigénie en Aulide'', which had secured the Dauphine's position as a patron of the arts, Louis XV fell ill with smallpox. On 4 May, the dying king was pressured to send the comtesse du Barry away from Versailles; on 10 May, at 3 pm, he died at the age of 64. Louis-Auguste was crowned King Louis XVI of France on 11 June 1775 at the cathedral of Rheims. Marie Antoinette was not crowned alongside him, merely accompanying him during the coronation ceremony.

Reign: 1774–1792

1774–1778: Early years

From the outset, despite how she was portrayed in contemporary ''libelles'', the new queen had very little political influence with her husband. Louis, who had been influenced as a child by anti-Austrian sentiments in the court, blocked many of her candidates, including Choiseul, from taking important positions, aided and abetted by his two most important ministers, Chief Minister Maurepas and Foreign Minister Vergennes. All three were anti-Austrian, and were wary of the potential repercussions of allowing the queen – and, through her, the Austrian empire – to have any say in French policy.

Marie Antoinette's situation became more precarious when, on 6 August 1775, her sister-in-law, the comtesse d'Artois, gave birth to a son, the duc d'Angoulême (who later became the presumptive heir to the French throne when his father, the comte d'Artois, became King Charles X of France in 1824). There followed a release of a plethora of graphic satirical pamphlets, which mainly centered on the king's impotence and the queen's searching for sexual relief elsewhere, with men and women alike. Among her rumored lovers were her close friend, the princesse de Lamballe, and her handsome brother-in-law, the comte d'Artois, with whom the queen had a good rapport.

These personal attacks caused the queen to plunge further into the costly diversions of buying her dresses from Rose Bertin and gambling, simply to enjoy herself. On one famed occasion, she played for three days straight with players from Paris, straight up until her 21st birthday. She also began to attract various male admirers whom she accepted into her inner circles, including the baron de Besenval, the duc de Coigny, and Count Valentin Esterházy.

She was given free rein to renovate the ''Petit Trianon'', a small château on the grounds of Versailles, which was given to her as a gift by Louis XVI on 15 August 1774; she concentrated mainly on horticulture, redesigning in the English mode the garden, which in the previous reign had been an arboretum of introduced species, and adding flowers. Although the ''Petit Trianon'' had been built for Louis XV's mistress, Madame de Pompadour, it became associated with Marie Antoinette's perceived extravagance. With the "English garden" Marie Antoinette and her court adopted the English dress of indienne, of percale or muslin. The tradition of costume at the court at Versailles was broken more than ten years long. Rumors circulated that she plastered the walls with gold and diamonds. Her lady-in-waiting Jeanne-Louise-Henriette Campan replaid on such rumors that Marie Antoinette visited the workshops of the village in a simple dress of white percale with a gauze scarf and a straw hat.

...the innovativeness of Marie Antoinette's country retreat would attract her subjects’ fierce disapproval, even as it aimed to bolster her autonomy and enhance her prestige...

An even bigger problem, however, was the debt incurred by France during the Seven Years' War, still unpaid. It was further exacerbated by Vergennes' prodding Louis XVI to get involved in Great Britain's war with its North American colonies, due to France's traditional rivalry with Great Britain.

In the midst of preparations for sending help to France, and in the atmosphere of the first wave of ''libelles'', Holy Roman Emperor Joseph came to call on his sister and brother-in-law on 18 April 1777, the subsequent six-week visit in Versailles a part of the attempt to figure out why their marriage had not been consummated. It was due to Joseph's intervention that, on 30 August 1777, the marriage was officially consummated. Eight months later, in April, it was suspected that the queen was finally pregnant with her first child. This was confirmed on 16 May 1778.

1778–1781: Motherhood

In the middle of her pregnancy, two events occurred which had a profound impact on the queen's later life. First, there was the return of the handsome Swede, Count Axel von Fersen – whom she had met previously on New Year's Day, 1774, while she was still Dauphine – to Versailles for two years. Secondly, the king's wealthy but spiteful cousin, the duc de Chartres, was disgraced due to his questionable conduct during the Battle of Ouessant against the British. In addition, Marie Antoinette's brother, the Emperor Joseph, began making claims on the throne of Bavaria based upon his second marriage to the princess Maria Josepha of Bavaria. Marie Antoinette pleaded with her husband for the French to help intercede on behalf of Austria but was rebuffed by the king and his ministers. The Peace of Teschen, signed on 13 May 1779, ended the brief conflict, but the incident once more showed the limited influence that the queen had in politics.

Marie Antoinette's daughter, Marie-Thérèse Charlotte, given the honorific title at birth of ''Madame Royale'', was finally born at Versailles, after a particularly difficult labour, on 19 December 1778, following an ordeal where the queen literally collapsed from suffocation and hemorrhaging. The queen's bedroom was packed with courtiers watching the birth, and the doctor aiding her supposedly caused the excessive bleeding by accident. The windows had to be torn out to revive her. This incident has a variant: some sources purport that it was the Princesse de Lamballe who lost consciousness, and to prevent the queen from doing the same, the king himself – rather unusually – let in some air by tearing off the tapes that sealed the windows. In any case, as a result of this harrowing experience, the queen and the king banned most courtiers from entering her bedchamber for subsequent labours.

The baby's paternity was contested in the libelles, but not by the king himself, who was close to his daughter.

The birth of a daughter meant that pressure to have a male heir continued, and Marie Antoinette wrote about her worrisome health, which might have contributed to a miscarriage in July 1779. Antonia Fraser expresses doubts as to whether there was a pregnancy in 1779, ascribing the queen's belief that she had a miscarriage to Antoinette's irregular menstrual cycle. The memoirs of the queen's lady-in-waiting, Madame Campan, state explicitly that the miscarriage came about after the queen exerted herself too strenuously in closing a window in her carriage, felt that she had hurt herself, and lost the child eight days later. Campan adds that the king spent a morning consoling the queen at her bedside, and swore to secrecy all those who were aware of the accident.

Meanwhile, the queen began to institute changes in the customs practised at court, with the approval of the king. Some changes, such as the abolition of segregated dining spaces, had already been instituted for some time and had been met with disapproval from the older generation. More importantly was the abandonment of heavy make-up and the popular wide-hooped panniers for a more simple feminine look, typified first by the rustic robe à la polonaise and later by the 'gaulle,' a simple muslin dress that she wore in a 1783 Vigée-Le Brun portrait. She also began to participate in amateur plays and musicals, starting in 1780, in a theatre built for her and other courtiers who wished to indulge in the delights of acting and singing.

In 1780, two candidates who had been supported by Marie Antoinette for positions, the marquis de Castries, and the comte de Ségur, were appointed Minister of the Navy and Minister of War, respectively. Though many believed it was entirely the support of the queen that enabled them to secure their positions, in truth it was mostly that of Finance Minister Jacques Necker.

Later that year, Empress Maria Theresa began to fall ill with dropsy and an unnamed respiratory problem. She died on 29 November 1780, in Vienna, at the age of 63, and was mourned throughout Europe. Marie Antoinette was worried that the death of her mother would jeopardise the Franco-Austrian alliance (as well as, ultimately, herself), but Emperor Joseph reassured her through his own letters (as the empress had not stopped writing to Marie Antoinette until shortly before her death) that he had no intention of breaking the alliance.

Three months after the empress' death, it was rumoured that Marie Antoinette was pregnant again, which was confirmed in March 1781. Another royal visit from Joseph II in July, partially to reaffirm the Franco-Austrian alliance and also a means of seeing his sister again, was tainted with false rumours that Marie Antoinette was siphoning treasury money to him.

On 22 October 1781, the queen gave birth to Louis Joseph Xavier François, who bore the title Dauphin of France, as was customary for the eldest son of the King of France. The reaction to the birth of an heir was best summed up by the words of Louis XVI himself, as he wrote them down in his hunting journal: "Madame, you have fulfilled our wishes and those of France, you are the mother of Dauphin". He would, according to courtiers, try to frame sentences to put in the phrase "my son the Dauphin" in the weeks to come. It also helped that, three days before the birth, the majority of the fighting in the conflict in America had been concluded with the surrender of General Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown.

1782–1785: Declining popularity

Despite the general celebration over the birth of the Dauphin, Marie Antoinette's political influence, such as it was, did not benefit Austria. Instead, after the death of the comte de Maurepas, the influence of Vergennes was strengthened, and she was again left out of political affairs. The same happened during the so-called Kettle War, in which her brother Joseph attempted to open up the Scheldt River for naval passage. Later, another attempt by him to claim Bavaria was rebuffed as being against French interests.

When accused of being a "dupe" by her brother for her political inaction, Marie Antoinette responded that she had little power. The king rarely talked to her about policy, and his anti-Austrian education as a child fortified his refusals in allowing his wife any participation in his decisions. As a result, she had to pretend to his ministers that she was in his full confidence in order to get the information she wanted. This led the court to believe she had more power than she did. As she wrote, "Would it be wise of me to have scenes with his (Louis XVI's) ministers over matters on which it is practically certain the King would not support me?"

Her temperament was more suited to personally directing the education of her children. To do so was against the traditions of Versailles, where the queen usually had little say over the ''Enfants de France'', as the royal children were called, and they were instead handed over to various courtiers who fought over the privilege. In particular, after the royal governess at the time of the Dauphin's birth, the princesse de Guéméné, went bankrupt and was forced to resign, there was a controversy over who should replace her. Marie Antoinette appointed her favourite, the duchesse de Polignac, to the position. This decision met with disapproval from the court, as the duchess was considered to be of too "immodest" a birth to occupy such an exalted position. On the other hand, both the king and queen trusted Mme de Polignac completely, and the duchess had children of her own to whom the queen had become attached.

In June 1783, Marie Antoinette was pregnant again. That same month, Count Axel von Fersen returned from America, in order to secure a military appointment, and he was accepted into her private society. He left in September to become a captain of the bodyguard for his sovereign, Gustavus III, the king of Sweden, who was conducting a tour of Europe. Marie Antoinette suffered a miscarriage on the night of 1–2 November 1783, prompting more fears for her health.

Trying to calm her mind, during Fersen's first visit, and later after his return on 7 June 1784, the queen occupied herself with the creation of the ''Hameau de la reine'', a model hamlet in the garden of the Petit Trianon with a mill and 12 cottages, 9 of which are still standing. The Hameau was one of Marie Antoinette's contributions to augmenting the chateau at Versailles and it can to this day be viewed by the public. Its creation, however, unexpectedly caused another uproar when the actual price of the ''Hameau'' was inflated by her critics. In truth, it was copied from another, far grander "model village" built in 1774 for the prince de Condé on his estate at Chantilly. The comtesse de Provence's version included windmills and a marble dairyhouse. Started in 1783 and finished in 1787, to designs of the Queen's favoured architect, Richard Mique, the hamlet was complete with farmhouse, dairy, and mill. Public records indicate that in 1781 the Comtesse de Provence's bought land for her Hameau which was completed in 1783, just before work started on the Queen's Hameau. Also, the "Temple of Love" (a physical structure built as a part of the Queen's Hameau) bears a marked and striking resemblance to the rotunda of the Pavillon de Musique, which was the folie built by the Comtesse de Provence situated in her Hameau.

In addition to the creation of the Hameau, Marie Antoinette had other notable interests and activities. She became an avid reader of historical novels, and her scientific interest was piqued enough to become a witness to the launching of hot air balloons. She was fascinated by Rousseau's "back to nature" philosophy, as well as the culture of the Incas of Peru and their worship of the sun, about which she had books in her library. Briefly, she even sought out important British personages such as the Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger, and the British ambassador to France, the Duke of Dorset. She also developed an interest in learning English, and while she never became fluent, she was able to write in broken English to her friend, the Duchess of Devonshire.

Despite the many things which Marie Antoinette did in her spare time, her primary concern became the health of the Dauphin, which was beginning to fail. By the time Fersen returned to Versailles in 1784, it was widely thought that the sickly Dauphin would not live to be an adult. As a consequence, it was rumored that the king and queen were attempting to have another child. During this time, Beaumarchais' play ''The Marriage of Figaro'' premiered in Paris. After initially having been banned by the king due to its negative portrayal of the nobility, the play was ironically finally allowed to be publicly performed because of its overwhelming popularity at court, where secret readings of it had been given.

In August 1784, the queen reported that she was pregnant again. With the future enlargement of her family in mind, she bought the Château de Saint-Cloud, a place she had always loved, from the duc d'Orléans, the father of the previously disgraced duc de Chartres. She intended to leave it as an inheritance to her younger children without stipulation, but later realized that her children would not appreciate it. This was a hugely unpopular acquisition, particularly with some factions of the nobility who already disliked her, but also with a growing percentage of the population who felt shocked that a French queen might own her own residence, independent of the king. Despite having the baron de Breteuil working on her behalf, the purchase did not help improve the public's image of the queen as frivolous. The château's expensive price, almost 6 million livres, plus the substantial extra cost of redecorating it, ensured that there was less money going towards repaying France's substantial debt.

On 27 March 1785, Marie Antoinette gave birth to a second son, Louis Charles, who was created the duc de Normandie. Louis Charles was visibly stronger than the sickly Dauphin, and the new baby was affectionately nicknamed by the queen, ''chou d'amour''. The fact that this delivery occurred exactly nine months following Fersen's visit did not escape the attention of many, and though there is much doubt and historical speculation about the parentage of this child, public opinion towards her decreased noticeably. These suspicions of illegitimacy, along with the continued publication of the ''libelles'', a never-ending cavalcade of court intrigues, the actions of Joseph II in the Kettle War, and her purchase of Saint-Cloud combined to turn popular opinion sharply against the queen, and the image of a licentious, spendthrift, empty-headed foreign queen was quickly taking root in the French psyche.

1786-1789: Prelude to revolution

A second daughter, Sophie Hélène Béatrice de France, was born on 9 July 1786, but died on 19 June 1787. The continuing deterioration of the financial situation in France – despite the fact that cutbacks in the royal retinue had been made – ultimately forced the king, in collaboration with his current Minister of Finance, Calonne, to call the Assembly of Notables, after a hiatus of 160 years. The assembly was held to try to pass some of the reforms needed to alleviate the financial situation when the Parlements refused to cooperate. The first meeting of the assembly took place on 22 February 1787, at which Marie Antoinette was not present. Later, her absence resulted in her being accused of trying to undermine the purpose of the assembly .

However, the Assembly was a failure with or without the queen, as it did not pass any reforms and instead fell into a pattern of defying the king, demanding other reforms and for the acquiescence of the Parlements. As a result, the king dismissed Calonne on 8 April 1787; Vergennes died on 13 February. The king, once more ignoring the queen's pro-Austrian candidate, appointed a childhood friend, the comte de Montmorin, to replace Vergennes as Foreign Minister.

During this time, even as her candidate was rejected, the queen began to abandon her more carefree activities to become more involved in politics than ever before, and mostly against the interests of Austria. This was for a variety of reasons. First, her children were ''Enfants de France'', and thus their future as leaders of France needed to be assured. Second, by concentrating on her children, the queen sought to improve the dissolute image she had acquired from the "Diamond Necklace Affair", in which she had been accused of participating in a crime to defraud the crown jewelers of the cost of a very expensive diamond necklace. Third, the king had begun to withdraw from a decision-making role in government due to the onset of an acute case of depression from all the pressures he was under. The symptoms of this depression were passed off as drunkenness by the ''libelles''. As a result, Marie Antoinette finally emerged as a politically viable entity, although that was never her actual intention. In her new capacity as a politician with a degree of power, the queen tried her best to help the situation brewing between the assembly and the king.

This change in her political role signalled the beginning of the end of the influence of the duchesse de Polignac, as Marie Antoinette began to dislike the duchesse's huge expenditures and their impact on the finances of the Crown. The duchesse left for England in May, leaving her children behind in Versailles. Also in May, Étienne Charles de Loménie de Brienne, the archbishop of Toulouse and one of the queen's political allies, was appointed by the king to replace Calonne as the Finance Minister. He began instituting more cutbacks at court.

Brienne, though, was not able to improve the financial situation. Since he was the queen's ally, this failure adversely affected her political position. The continued poor financial climate of the country resulted in the 25 May dissolution of the Assembly of Notables because of its inability to get things done. This lack of solutions was unfairly blamed on the queen. In reality, the blame should have been placed on a combination of several other factors. There had been too many expensive wars, a too-large royal family whose large frivolous expenditures far exceeded those of the queen, and an unwillingness on the part of many of the aristocrats in charge to help defray the costs of the government out of their own pockets with higher taxes. Marie Antoinette earned the nickname of "Madame Déficit" in the summer of 1787 as a result of the public perception that she had singlehandedly ruined the finances of the nation.

The queen attempted to fight back with her own propaganda that portrayed her as a caring mother, most notably with the portrait of her and her children done by Élisabeth Vigée-Lebrun, which premiered at the Royal Académie Salon de Paris in August 1787. This attack strategy was eventually dropped, however, because of the death of the queen's youngest child, Sophie. Around the same time, Jeanne de Lamotte-Valois escaped from prison in France and fled to London, where she published more damaging lies concerning her supposed "affair" with the queen.

The political situation in 1787 began to worsen when the ''Parlement'' was exiled, and culminated on 11 November, when the king tried to use a ''lit de justice'' to force through legislation. He was unexpectedly challenged by his formerly disgraced cousin, the duc de Chartres, who had inherited the title of duc d'Orléans at the death of his father in 1785. The new duc d'Orléans publicly protested the king's actions, and was subsequently exiled. The May Edicts issued on 8 May 1788 were also opposed by the public. Finally, on 8 July and 8 August, the king announced his intention to bring back the Estates General, the traditional elected legislature of the country which had not been convened since 1614.

Marie Antoinette was not directly involved with the exile of the ''Parlement'', the May Edicts or with the announcement regarding the Estates General. Her primary concern in late 1787 and 1788 was instead the improved health of the Dauphin. He was suffering from tuberculosis, which in his case had twisted and curved his spinal column severely. He was brought to the château at Meudon in the hope that its country air would help the young boy recover. Unfortunately, the move did little to alleviate the Dauphin's condition, which gradually continued to deteriorate.

The queen, however, was present with her daughter, Marie-Therese, when Tippu Sahib of Mysore visited Versailles seeking help against the British. More importantly she was instrumental in the recall of Jacques Necker as Finance Minister on 26 August, a popular move, even though she herself was worried that the recall would again go against her if Necker was unsuccessful in reforming the country's finances.

Her prediction began to come true when bread prices started to rise due to the severe 1788–1789 winter. The Dauphin's condition worsened even more, riots broke out in Paris in April, and on 26 March, Louis XVI himself almost died from a fall off a roof.

"Come, Léonard, dress my hair, I must go like an actress, exhibit myself to a public that may hiss me", the queen quipped to her hairdresser, who was one of her "ministers of fashion", as she prepared for the Mass celebrating the return of the Estates General on 4 May 1789. She knew that her rival, the duc d'Orléans, who had given money and bread to the people during the winter, would be popularly acclaimed by the crowd much to her detriment. The Estates General convened the next day. During the month of May, the Estates General began to fracture between the democratic Third Estate (consisting of the bourgeoisie and radical nobility), and the royalist nobility of the Second Estate, while the king's brothers began to become more hardline.

Despite these developments, the queen was strongly focused on thoughts for her son, the dying Dauphin. With his mother at his side, the seven-year old boy passed away at Meudon on 4 June, succumbing to tuberculosis, and leaving the title of Dauphin to his younger brother, Louis Charles. His death, which would have normally been nationally mourned, was virtually ignored by the French people, who were instead preparing for the next meeting of the Estates General, and hoping for a resolution to the bread crisis. As the Third Estate declared itself a National Assembly and took the Tennis Court Oath — and as others listened to rumors that the queen wished to bathe in their blood — Marie Antoinette went into mourning for her eldest son.

July 1789–1792: The French Revolution

The situation began to escalate violently in June as the National Assembly began to demand more rights, and Louis XVI began to push back with efforts to suppress the Third Estate. However, the king's ineffectiveness and the queen's unpopularity undermined the monarchy as an institution, and so these attempts failed. Then, on 11 July, Necker was dismissed. Paris was besieged by riots at the news, which culminated in the storming of the Bastille on 14 July.

In the days and weeks that followed, many of the most conservative, reactionary royalists, including the comte d'Artois and the duchesse de Polignac, fled France for fear of assassination. Marie Antoinette, whose life was the most in danger, stayed behind in order to help the king promote stability, even as his power was gradually being taken away by the National Constituent Assembly, which was now ruling Paris and conscripting men to serve in the ''Garde Nationale''.

By the end of August, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (''La Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen'') was adopted, which officially created the beginning of a constitutional monarchy in France. Despite this, the king was still required to perform certain court ceremonies, even as the situation in Paris became worse due to a bread shortage in September. On 5 October, a mob from Paris descended upon Versailles and forced the royal family, along with the comte de Provence, his wife and Madame Elisabeth, to move to Paris under the watchful eye of the ''Garde Nationale''. The king and queen were installed in the Tuileries Palace under surveillance. During this limited house arrest, Marie Antoinette conveyed to her friends that she did not intend to involve herself any further in French politics, as everything, whether or not she was involved, would inevitably be attributed to her anyway and she feared the repercussions of further involvement.

Despite the situation, Marie Antoinette was still required to perform charitable functions and to attend certain religious ceremonies, which she did. Most of her time, however, was dedicated to her children.

Despite her attempts to remain out of the public eye, she was falsely accused in the ''libelles'' of having an affair with the commander of the ''Garde Nationale'', the marquis de La Fayette. In reality, she loathed the marquis for his liberal tendencies and for being partially responsible for the royal family's forced departure from Versailles. This was not the only accusation Marie Antoinette faced from such "libelles." In such pamphlets as "''Le Godmiché Royal''", (translated, "''The Royal Dildo''"), it was suggested that she routinely engaged in deviant sexual acts of various sorts, most famously with the English Baroness 'Lady Sophie Farrell' of Bournemouth, a renowned lesbian of the time. From acting as a tribade, (in her case in the lesbian sense), to sleeping with her son, Marie Antoinette was constantly an object of rumor and false accusations of committing sexual acts with partners other than the king. Later, allegations of this sort (from incest to orgiastic excesses) were used to justify her execution. Ultimately, none of the charges of sexual depravity have any credible evidentiary support. Marie Antoinette was simply an easy target for rumor and criticism.

Constantly monitored by revolutionary spies within her own household, the queen played little or no part in the writing of the French Constitution of 1791, which greatly weakened the king's authority. She, nevertheless, hoped for a future where her son would still be able to rule, convinced that the violence would soon pass.

During this time, there were many plots designed to help members of the royal family escape. The queen rejected several because she would not leave without the king. Other opportunities to rescue the family were ultimately frittered away by the indecisive king. Once the king finally did commit to a plan, his indecision played an important role in its poor execution and ultimate failure. In an elaborate attempt to escape from Paris to the royalist stronghold of Montmédy planned by Count Axel von Fersen and the baron de Breteuil, some members of the royal family were to pose as the servants of a wealthy Russian baroness. Initially, the queen rejected the plan because it required her to leave with only her son. She wished instead for the rest of the royal family to accompany her. The king wasted time deciding upon which members of the family should be included in the venture, what the departure date should be, and the exact path of the route to be used. After many delays, the escape ultimately occurred on 21 June 1791, and was a failure. The entire family was captured twenty-four hours later at Varennes and taken back to Paris within a week.

The result of the fiasco was a further decline in the popularity of both the king and queen. The Jacobin Party successfully exploited the failed escape to advance its radical agenda. Its members called for the end to any type of monarchy in France.

Though the new constitution was adopted on 3 September, Marie Antoinette hoped through the end of 1791 that the political drift she saw occurring toward representative democracy could be stopped and rolled back. She fervently hoped that the constitution would prove unworkable, and also that her brother, the new Holy Roman emperor, Leopold II, would find some way to defeat the revolutionaries. However, she was unaware that Leopold was more interested in taking advantage of France's state of chaos for the benefit of Austria than in helping his sister and her family, despite many demands from both citizens and even soldiers to have the Austrian Army invade France and rescue Marie.

The result of Leopold's aggressive tendencies, and those of his son Francis II, who succeeded him in March, was that France declared war on Austria on 20 April 1792. This caused the queen to be viewed as an enemy, even though she was personally against Austrian claims on French lands. The situation became compounded in the summer when French armies were continually being defeated by the Austrians and the king vetoed several measures that would have restricted his power even further. During this time, due to his political activities, Louis received the nickname "Monsieur Veto" – and the name "Madame Veto" was likewise subsequently bequeathed on Marie Antoinette. These names were then prominently featured in different contexts, including La Carmagnole.

On 20 June, "a mob of terrifying aspect" broke into the Tuileries and made the king wear the ''bonnet rouge'' (red Phrygian cap) to show his loyalty to France.

The vulnerability of the king was exposed on 10 August when an armed mob, on the verge of forcing its way into the Tuileries Palace, forced the king and the royal family to seek refuge at the Legislative Assembly. An hour and a half later, the palace was invaded by the mob who massacred the Swiss Guards. On 13 August, the royal family was imprisoned in the tower of the Temple in the Marais under conditions considerably harsher than their previous confinement in the Tuileries.

A week later, many of the royal family's attendants, among them the ''princesse de Lamballe'', were taken in for interrogation by the Paris Commune. Transferred to the ''La Force'' prison, she was one of the victims of the September Massacres, killed on 3 September. Her head was affixed on a pike and marched through the city. Although Marie Antoinette did not see the head of her friend as it was paraded outside her prison window, she fainted upon learning about the gruesome end that had befallen her faithful companion.

On 21 September, the fall of the monarchy was officially declared, and the National Convention became the legal authority of France. The royal family was re-styled as the non-royal "Capets". Preparations for the trial of the king in a court of law began.

Charged with undermining the First French Republic, Louis was separated from his family and tried in December. He was found guilty by the Convention, led by the Jacobins who rejected the idea of keeping him as a hostage. However, the sentence did not come until one month later, when he was condemned to execution by guillotine.

1793: "Widow Capet" and death

Louis was executed on 21 January 1793, at the age of thirty-eight. The result was that the "Widow Capet", as the former queen was called after the death of her husband, plunged into deep mourning; she refused to eat or do any exercise. There is no knowledge of her proclaiming her son as Louis XVII; however, the comte de Provence, in exile, recognised his nephew as the new king of France and took the title of Regent. Marie-Antoinette's health rapidly deteriorated in the following months. By this time she suffered from tuberculosis and possibly uterine cancer, which caused her to hemorrhage frequently.

Despite her condition, the debate as to her fate was the central question of the National Convention after Louis's death. There were those who had been advocating her death for some time, while some had the idea of exchanging her for French prisoners of war or for a ransom from the Holy Roman Emperor. Thomas Paine advocated exile to America. Starting in April, however, a Committee of Public Safety was formed, and men such as Jacques Hébert were beginning to call for Antoinette's trial; by the end of May, the Girondins had been chased out of power and arrested. Other calls were made to "retrain" the Dauphin, to make him more pliant to revolutionary ideas. This was carried out when the eight-year-old boy Louis Charles was separated from Antoinette on 3 July, and given to the care of a cobbler. On 1 August, she herself was taken out of the Tower and entered into the Conciergerie as Prisoner No. 280. Despite various attempts to get her out, such as the Carnation Plot in September, Marie Antoinette refused when the plots for her escape were brought to her attention. While in the Conciergerie, she was attended by her last servant, Rosalie Lamorlière.

She was finally tried by the Revolutionary Tribunal on 14 October. Unlike the king, who had been given time to prepare a defence, the queen's trial was far more of a sham, considering the time she was given (less than one day). Among the things she was accused of (most, if not all, of the accusations were untrue and probably lifted from rumours begun by ''libelles'') were orchestrating orgies in Versailles, sending millions of livres of treasury money to Austria, plotting to kill the Duke of Orléans, incest with her son, declaring her son to be the new king of France, and orchestrating the massacre of the Swiss Guards in 1792.

The most infamous charge was that she sexually abused her son. This was according to Louis Charles, who, through his coaching by Hébert and his guardian, accused his mother. After being reminded that she had not answered the charge of incest, Marie Antoinette protested emotionally to the accusation, and the women present in the courtroom — the market women who had stormed the palace for her entrails in 1789 — even began to support her. She had been composed throughout the trial until this accusation was made, to which she finally answered, "If I have not replied it is because Nature itself refuses to respond to such a charge laid against a mother."

However, in reality the outcome of the trial had already been decided by the Committee of Public Safety around the time the Carnation Plot was uncovered, and she was declared guilty of treason in the early morning of 16 October, after two days of proceedings. Back in her cell, she composed a letter to her sister-in-law Madame Élisabeth, affirming her clear conscience, her Catholic faith and her feelings for her children. The letter did not reach Élisabeth.

On the same day, her hair was cut off and she was driven through Paris in an open cart, wearing a simple white dress. At 12:15 p.m., two and a half weeks before her thirty-eighth birthday, she was executed at the ''Place de la Révolution'' (present-day ''Place de la Concorde''). Her last words were "Pardon me sir, I meant not to do it", to Henri Sanson the executioner, whose foot she had accidentally stepped on after climbing the scaffold. Her body was thrown into an unmarked grave in the Madeleine cemetery, rue d'Anjou, (which was closed the following year).

Her sister-in-law Élisabeth was executed in 1794 and her son died in prison in 1795. Her daughter returned to Austria in a prisoner exchange, married and died childless in 1851.

Both Marie Antoinette's body and that of Louis XVI were exhumed on 18 January 1815, during the Bourbon Restoration, when the ''comte de Provence'' had become King Louis XVIII. Christian burial of the royal remains took place three days later, on 21 January, in the necropolis of French Kings at the Basilica of St Denis.

In popular culture

The phrase "Let them eat cake" is often attributed to Marie Antoinette. However, there is no evidence to support that she ever uttered this phrase, and it is now generally regarded as a ''"journalistic cliché"''. It originally appeared in Book VI of the first part (finished in 1767, published in 1782) of Rousseau's putative autobiographical work, ''Les Confessions''.

''Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d’une grande princesse à qui l’on disait que les paysans n’avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit : Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.''

Apart from the fact that Rousseau ascribes these words to an unknown princess – vaguely referred to as a 'great princess', there is some level of thought that he invented it altogether, seeing as ''Confessions'' was, on the whole, a rather inaccurate autobiography.

In America, expressions of gratitude to France for its help in the American Revolution included the naming of the city of Marietta, Ohio, founded in 1788. The Ohio Company of Associates chose the name Marietta after an affectionate nickname for Marie Antoinette.

Titles from birth to death

2 November 1755 – 19 April 1770: ''Her Royal Highness'' Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria

19 April 1770 – 10 May 1774: ''Her Royal Highness'' The Dauphine of France

10 May 1774 – 1 October 1791: ''Her Majesty'' The Queen of France and Navarre

1 October 1791 – 21 September 1792: ''Her Majesty'' The Queen of the French

21 September 1792 - 21 January 1793: Madame Capet

21 January 1793 – 16 October 1793: La Veuve ("the widow") Capet

Ancestry

{{ahnentafel-compact5 |style=font-size: 90%; line-height: 110%; |border=1 |boxstyle=padding-top: 0; padding-bottom: 0; |boxstyle_1=background-color: #fcc; |boxstyle_2=background-color: #fb9; |boxstyle_3=background-color: #ffc; |boxstyle_4=background-color: #bfc; |boxstyle_5=background-color: #9fe; |1= 1. Marie Antoinette |2= 2. Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor |3= 3. Maria Theresa of Austria |4= 4. Leopold, Duke of Lorraine |5= 5. Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans |6= 6. Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor |7= 7. Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel |8= 8. Charles V, Duke of Lorraine |9= 9. Eleonora Maria of Austria |10= 10. Philippe of France, Duke of Orléans |11= 11. Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate |12= 12. Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor |13= 13. Eleonor Magdalene of Neuburg |14= 14. Louis Rudolph, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel |15= 15. Christine Louise of Oettingen-Oettingen |16= 16. Nicholas II, Duke of Lorraine |17= 17. Claude Françoise of Lorraine |18= 18. Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor |19= 19. Eleanor Gonzaga |20= 20. Louis XIII of France |21= 21. Anne of Austria |22= 22. Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine |23= 23. Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel |24= 24. Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor (= 18) |25= 25. Maria Ana of Austria |26= 26. Philipp Wilhelm, Elector Palatine |27= 27. Elisabeth Amalie of Hesse-Darmstadt |28= 28. Anthony Ulrich, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel |29= 29. Duchess Elisabeth of Schleswig-Holstein-Sønderburg-Norburg |30= 30. Albert Ernest I, Prince of Oettingen-Oettingen |31= 31. Duchess Christine Frederica of Württemburg }}

References

;Notes

;Bibliography

;Further reading

External links

"Marie Antionette" in the ''Catholic Encyclopedia''

Story of Marie Antoinette with Primary Sources

Find A Grave

Marie Antoinette's official Versailles profile

Using mtDNA to track the case of Louis XVII, son of Marie Antoinette

Marie Antoinette Online – A site with a sympathetic bend, and contains a great deal of information.

The marais of Marie-Antoinette sur parismarais.com

Tea At Trianon – Many articles on all things Antoinette, from Versailles to Trianon to the most obscure details of life in Royal France, by historian and author Elena Maria Vidal.

Online catalog of Marie Antoinette's personal reading library from the Petit-Trianon palace, based on 1863 printed catalog, online at LibraryThing.

If they have no bread, let them eat cake.

Category:1755 births Category:1793 deaths Category:18th-century French people Category:18th-century Austrian people Category:18th-century German people Category:Archduchesses of Austria Category:Austrian people executed abroad Category:Austrian Roman Catholics Category:Bohemian princesses Category:Burials at the Basilica of St Denis Category:Dauphines of France Category:Dauphines of Viennois Category:Executed Austrian women Category:Executed French women Category:Executed royalty Category:French people of Austrian descent Category:French queens consort Category:French Roman Catholics Category:French socialites Category:House of Bourbon (France) Category:House of Habsburg-Lorraine Category:Hungarian princesses Category:People executed by guillotine during the French Revolution Category:People executed for treason against France Category:People from Vienna Category:Princesses of France (Bourbon) Category:Smallpox survivors Category:Tuscan princesses Category:Louis XVI of France

als:Marie Antoinette ar:ماري أنطوانيت az:Mariya Antuanetta zh-min-nan:Marie Antoinette be:Марыя Антуанета be-x-old:Марыя Антуанэта bg:Мария-Антоанета bs:Marija Antoaneta br:Marie-Antoinette Bro-C'hall ca:Maria Antonieta d'Àustria cs:Marie Antoinetta da:Marie-Antoinette de:Marie Antoinette et:Marie Antoinette el:Μαρία Αντουανέτα es:María Antonieta de Austria eo:Marie-Antoinette eu:Marie Antoinette fa:ماری آنتوانت fr:Marie-Antoinette d'Autriche ga:Marie Antoinette na hOstaire gd:Marie Antoinette gl:María Antonieta de Austria ko:마리 앙투아네트 hr:Marija Antoaneta io:Marie-Antoinette id:Marie Antoinette is:Marie Antoinette it:Maria Antonietta d'Asburgo-Lorena he:מארי אנטואנט ka:მარი ანტუანეტი la:Maria Antonia Austriaca (regina Franciae) lv:Marija Antuanete lb:Marie-Antoinette vun Éisträich lt:Marija Antuanetė hu:Mária Antónia francia királyné mk:Марија Антоанета arz:مارى انطوانيت nl:Marie Antoinette van Oostenrijk ja:マリー・アントワネット no:Marie Antoinette av Frankrike nn:Marie Antoinette oc:Maria Antonieta d'Àustria pl:Maria Antonina Austriaczka pt:Maria Antonieta ro:Maria Antoaneta, regină a Franței qu:Marie Antoinette ru:Мария-Антуанетта scn:Maria Antonietta simple:Marie Antoinette sk:Mária Antoinetta sl:Marija Antoinetta sr:Марија Антоанета sh:Marija Antoaneta fi:Marie-Antoinette sv:Marie Antoinette tl:Marie Antoinette th:มารี อ็องตัวแน็ต tr:Marie Antoinette uk:Марія Антуанетта vi:Marie Antoinette zh:玛丽·安托瓦内特