When discussing egotism and Donald Trump, I referred to the writing of Pieter Geyl, a Dutch historian I greatly admire, in discussing the kind of person who does not show sympathy for any others.  Geyl wrote a book – in part while imprisoned by the Nazis – Napoleon: For and Against.  One thing about French historians is that you rarely wait more than a page or two before learning where they stand.When discussing egotism and Donald Trump, I referred to the writing of Pieter Geyl, a Dutch historian I greatly admire, in discussing the kind of person who does not show sympathy for any others.  Geyl wrote a book – in part while imprisoned by the Nazis – Napoleon: For and Against.  One thing about French historians is that you rarely wait more than a page or two before learning where they stand.

Michelet reveled in the ‘People’ and saw in Napoleon a ‘mere self-seeking adventurer, the betrayer of the Revolution, and of the peoples.’  For good measure, he accused Napoleon of cowardice.

Taine came from a radically different position.  He was no friend of ‘the people’.  This is was what Geyl says was Taine’s view of Napoleon.

The complete egoist is a solitary being, irretrievably cut off from his fellow men.  He is self-insulated against all spontaneous feelings of sympathy, admiration or pity…. So intense is his egoism that he is unable to conceive of any other driving force in other men.  This great realist is morally blind, and his scorn for men leads him into stupid blunders…. He surrounds himself with servants instead of collaborators.  If someone inclined to independence compromises himself in his service…. he rejoices at the greater hold over the man this will give him.  Napoleon demands the performance of turpitudes…. He can see men only as instruments.  He hounds on his ministers, his generals, his officials, even his puppet kings, his brothers, like a slave-driver.  His harsh commanding voice easily takes on the accents of brutality, even of a refined cruelty.  He wounds, he humiliates, he tries to break spirits.  The lot of those nearest to him was far from enviable.  Strict etiquette and a tone of eternal constraint prevailed at the court.  Everyone trembled before the master, who could not cease, even for a moment, to be a master.

That describes any degenerate Roman emperor; that moral train wreck called Donald Trump; and any man utterly unfit for any form of public trust.

Later Geyl gives the views of Mme de Rémusat, which are very similar to those of Mme de Staël. …. he was completely heartless, without any spontaneous human feeling, nothing but self-love and accomplishing all his works in a whirl of egoism and crafty calculation…. So conscious of these qualities in himself that he measured all others by the same standard, thus committing the greatest psychological errors.  He was quite unable to believe in disinterested charitable action.  If he was forced to admit their existence, he only despised the doer, doubly despised him, for he started with a low opinion of mankind in general….

There is, someone said, nothing new under the sun.