"thus the fear he inspired was simply due to the singular effect of
his person on almost all who approached him. I had met men worthy of
respect and had likewise met men of ferocious character; but nothing
in the impression which Bonaparte produced on me reminded me of
either. I soon found, in the various opportunities I had of meeting
him during his stay in Paris, that his character was not to be
described in terms commonly employed; he was neither mild nor)violent,
nor gentle nor cruel, like certain personages one happens to know. A
being like him, wholly unlike anybody else, could neither feel nor
excite sympathy; he was both more and less than a man; his figure,
intellect, and language bore the imprint of a foreign nationality . .
. . far from being reassured on seeing Bonaparte oftener, he
intimidated me more and more every day. I had a confused impression
that he was not to be influenced by any emotion of sympathy or
affection. He regards a human being as a fact, an object, and not as
a fellow-creature. He neither hates nor loves, he exists for himself
alone; the rest of humanity are so many ciphers. The force of his
will consists in the imperturbable calculation of his egoism. He is a
skillful player who has the human species for an antagonist, and whom
he proposes to checkmate. . . Every time that I heard him talk I
was struck with his superiority; it bore no resemblance to that of men
informed and cultivated through study and social intercourse, such as
we find in France and England. His conversation indicated the tact of
circumstances, like that of the hunter in pursuit of his prey. His
spirit seemed a cold, keen sword-blade, which freezes while it wounds.
I felt a profound irony in his mind, which nothing great or beautiful
could escape, not even his own fame, for he despised the nation whose
suffrages he sought. . . " - "With him, everything was means or
aims; spontaneity, whether for good or for evil, was entirely absent."