I was listening to Zack's podcast on Napoleonic myths and the consensus view proposed by Ed Coss that Napoleon lacked the human characteristic of empathy. Before moving to my question I suppose I need to clarify I am neither a worshiper nor a detractor of the 'great man' - I say great ... not good.
Given the nature of class-based hierarchical societies of the late eighteen and early nineteenth centuries, intricately interwoven with monarchical government and privileged/closed institutions, just how common was empathy at the time? Do we have much evidence of widespread empathy being exhibited amongst Europe's ruling elites in this era?
I'm inclined to favour Ed Coss's proposal but am I wrong in thinking it neither remarkable or unusual a feature within a general or national leader?
Without having listened to the podcast episode, but having - as much as I could bring myself to do without exploding with anger - read the report of this study in "The Sword and the Spirit", I would like to add my thoughts. I am neither a historian, nor a psychologist or any other sort of academic, so I can only go by my very spontaneous and possibly naive understanding.
The story leading to this study, as far as I understood from the e-book: A group of historically interested military psychologists were wondering about Napoleon's possible psychological problems, based on what they had read about him. When trying to find examples for behaviour that fits the criteria for certain mental health problems, they all voted to include a search for behaviour that meets the criteria of narcissistic personality disorder. (Not that there was any bias or anything.) They would address the question by relying on a number of direct statements or actions by Napoleon, and in order to exclude dubious sources, only direct statements by Napoleon were admitted (meaning: from his correspondence, I assume) or statements by people who were in the same room with him.
Setting aside all problems of non-historians trying to assess historical situations, quotations and actions being presented without context and the tunnel vision of people whose work life evolves around a certain set of problems - it is pretty obvious that the value of such a study stands and falls with the sources. So, whom do we get?
- Bourrienne. BOURRIENNE.
Sorry, but you've got to be f'ing kidding me. I'll not even comment on that one. But wait, it gets better.
- Gourgaud. Again with the "I'm not a psychologist" disclaimer: everybody who has read anything about or from this guy knows he was not playing with a full desk.
- Las Cases. Uh... - you can't be serious?
- Caulaincourt. To be expected, I suppose. I'll leave the discussion about his credibility (or lack thereof) to actual historians.
And, not listed among the sources but obviously used a lot, when you look at the footnotes provided:
- Andrew Zamoyski. I guess he also was with Napoleon in the same room...
In addition to that, as the book states, there were some other sources, like Marchand (whom however I have not seen cited much within the study), Miot de Melito, Marmont, Constant, Madame de Rémusat and the other usual suspects. No Laure Junot, no Ida though, as far as I could see, which I did find a little disappointing. They would have fit in well. The existence of Napoleon's correspondence was acknowledged, if rarely used because ... all rather dry and businesslike and utterly un-sensational. (Plus, a LOT of it.) How odd.
I guess the problem here is obvious. Bourrienne's ghost-written memoirs were published during the Restauration, with the clear purpose of slandering Napoleon. On the other hand, Las Cases' publication was at the origin of the "Napoleonic legend", written with the clear purpose of glorifying and aggrandizing the ex-emperor. All these authors had their own agendas, their reasons for writing, their intended audience, their limitations as to what was advisable or not advisable to say during the time they wrote, and with very few exceptions, their memoirs were intended for publication and underwent heavy, heavy editing. But moreover, the memoirs by these authors (or rather their English translations) are also what the psychologists likely (directly or indirectly through secondary sources) had learned about Napoleon in the first place.
Even if all this was not a problem, just look at the time these witnesses cover: We have two people, Las Cases and Gourgaud, who only were in close contact with Napoleon after 1815. We have one (highly doubtful) witness, Bourrienne, for the time between 1795 and 1802 (Bourrienne lost his job as secretary in 1801). And then Caulaincourt for 1812. Did anybody notice the gap between 1802 and 1812? I wonder if anything happened during that time...
There's also a glaring lack of knowledge, if you go by this sentence:
"He had three secretaries, two formal and one informal, who recorded and published his words, and one general and diplomat who accompanied him to Moscow and back during the Russian campaign: Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne; Gaspard Gourgaud; Emmanuel-Auguste-Dieudonné, Comte de Las Cases; Armand-Augustin-Louis de Caulaincourt (Duc de Vicence)."
Gourgaud was never a secretary, and there are at least two more actual "formal" secretaries (Fain and Ménéval) who have written memoirs and who seem to have been neglected because ... the author of the study did not know about them? Or because they did not offer material that was in accordance with what the other sources said?
Also obviously not taken into account: family (though Lucien's memoirs were cited once) and their correspondence (your posthumous patient also was married twice, you know). Joseph has left memoirs, Eugène at least a fragment, Hortense three long volumes. They all are bound to have been "in the same room with him". Or, as the time on Saint Helena seems to be the main focus: Why no Montholon? Why no Bertrand? No Ali Saint-Denis? And if it has to be in English, why no O'Meara?
So, after having successfully set up an echo chamber that would resonate what they expected to hear - guess what these experts found?
I'm not even getting into the interpretation problems that non-historians will always encounter (and about which I'm so well-informed because I am not a historian), something like, for example, evaluating the court etiquette - I mean, gee, could it be that Napoleon was merely getting back to what had existed before the Revolution? And could there be other reasons for that than a personality disorder? - This "study" was doomed from the beginning due to several issues, but the mere choice of sources suffices for me to dismiss it out of hand. Which, by the way, does not mean that I consider a personality disorder in Napoleon's case impossible or even unlikely. But this study is completely unsuitable to prove or disprove it. If Napoleon was suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, well, that I cannot tell. What I dare say is that he on occasion acted around other people like what is commonly referred to as an arsehole.