the psychology of revolution-第19节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





The　presence　of　these　groups；　actuated　by　different　interests；

must　make　us　consider　an　assembly　as　formed　of　superimposed　and

heterogeneous　crowds；　each　obeying　its　particular　leaders。　　The

law　of　the　mental　unity　of　crowds　is　manifested　only　in　each

group；　and　it　is　only　as　a　result　of　exceptional　circumstances

that　the　different　groups　act　with　a　single　intention。



Each　group　in　an　assembly　represents　a　single　being。　　The

individuals　contributing　to　the　formation　of　this　being　are　no

longer　themselves；　and　will　unhesitatingly　vote　against　their

convictions　and　their　wishes。　　On　the　eve　of　the　day　when　Louis

XVI。　was　to　be　condemned　Vergniaud　protested　with　indignation

against　the　suggestion　that　he　should　vote　for　his　death；　but　he

did　so　vote　on　the　following　day。



The　action　of　a　group　consists　chiefly　in　fortifying　hesitating

opinions。　　All　feeble　individual　convictions　become　confirmed

upon　becoming　collective。



Leaders　of　great　repute　or　unusual　violence　can　sometimes；　by

acting　on　all　the　groups　of　an　assembly；　make　them　a　single

crowd。　　The　majority　of　the　members　of　the　Convention　enacted

measures　entirely　contrary　to　their　opinions　under　the　influence

of　a　very　small　number　of　such　leaders。



Collectivities　have　always　given　way　before　active　sectaries。　

The　history　of　the　revolutionary　Assemblies　shows　how

pusillanimous　they　were；　despite　the　boldness　of　their　language

respecting　kings；　before　the　leaders　of　the　popular　riots。　　The

invasion　of　a　band　of　energumens　commanded　by　an　imperious　leader

was　enough　to　make　them　vote　then　and　there　the　most　absurd　and

contradictory　measures。



An　assembly；　having　the　characteristics　of　a　crowd；　will；　like　a

crowd；　be　extreme　in　its　sentiments。　　Excessive　in　its　violence；

it　will　be　excessive　in　its　cowardice。　　In　general　it　will　be

insolent　to　the　weak　and　servile　before　the　strong。



We　remember　the　fearful　humility　of　the　Parliament　when　the

youthful　Louis　XIV。　entered；　whip　in　hand；　to　pronounce　his　brief

speech。　　We　know　with　what　increasing　impertinence　the

Constituent　Assembly　treated　Louis　XVI。　as　it　felt　that　he　was

becoming　defenceless。　　Finally；　we　recall　the　terror　of　the

Convention　under　the　reign　of　Robespierre。



This　characteristic　of　assemblies　being　a　general　law；　the

convocation　of　an　assembly　by　a　sovereign　when　his　power　is

failing　must　be　regarded　as　a　gross　error　in　psychology。　　The

assembling　of　the　States　General　cost　the　life　of　Louis

XVI。　　It　all　but　lost　Henry　III。　his　throne；　when；　obliged　to

leave　Paris；　he　had　the　unhappy　idea　of　assembling　the　Estates　at

Blois。　　Conscious　of　the　weakness　of　the　king；　the　Estates　at

once　spoke　as　masters　of　the　situation；　modifying　taxes；

dismissing　officials；　and　claiming　that　their　decisions　should

have　the　force　of　law。



This　progressive　exaggeration　of　sentiments　was　plainly

demonstrated　in　all　the　assemblies　of　the　Revolution。　　The

Constituent　Assembly；　at　first　extremely　respectful　toward　the

royal　authority　and　its　prerogatives；　finally　proclaimed　itself　a

sovereign　Assembly；　and　treated　Louis　XVI　as　a　mere　official。　

The　Convention；　after　relatively　moderate　beginnings；　ended　with

a　preliminary　form　of　the　Terror；　when　judgments　were　still

surrounded　by　certain　legal　guarantees：　then；　quickly　increasing

its　powers；　it　enacted　a　law　depriving　all　accused　persons　of　the

right　of　defence；　permitting　their　condemnation　upon　the　mere

suspicion　of　being　suspect。　　Yielding　more　and　more　to　its

sanguinary　frenzy；　it　finally　decimated　itself。　　Girondists；

Hebertists；　Dantonists；　and　Robespierrists　successively　ended

their　careers　at　the　hands　of　the　executioner。



This　exaggeration　of　the　sentiments　of　assemblies　explains　why

they　were　always　so　little　able　to　control　their　own　destinies

and　why　they　so　often　arrived　at　conclusions　exactly　contrary　to

the　ends　proposed。　　Catholic　and　royalist；　the　Constituent

Assembly；　instead　of　the　constitutional　monarchy　it　wished　to

establish　and　the　religion　it　wished　to　defend；　rapidly　led

France　to　a　violent　republic　and　the　persecution　of　the　clergy。



Political　assemblies　are　composed；　as　we　have　seen；　of

heterogeneous　groups；　but　they　have　sometimes　been　formed　of

homogeneous　groups；　as；　for　instance；　certain　of　the　clubs；　which

played　so　enormous　a　part　during　the　Revolution；　and　whose

psychology　deserves　a　special　examination。





2。　　The　Psychology　of　the　Revolutionary　Clubs。





Small　assemblies　of　men　possessing　the　same　opinions；　the　same

beliefs；　and　the　same　interests；　which　eliminate　all　dissentient

voices；　differ　from　the　great　assemblies　by　the　unity　of　their

sentiments　and　therefore　their　wills。　　Such　were　the　communes；

the　religious　congregations；　the　corporations；　and　the　clubs

during　the　Revolution；　the　secret　societies　during　the　first　half

of　the　nineteenth　century；　and　the　Freemasons　and　syndicalists　of

to…day。



The　points　of　difference　between　a　heterogeneous　assembly　and　a

homogeneous　club　must　be　thoroughly　grasped　if　we　are　to

comprehend　the　progress　of　the　French　Revolution。　　Until　the

Directory　and　especially　during　the　Convention　the　Revolution　was

directed　by　the　clubs。



Despite　the　unity　of　will　due　to　the　absence　of　dissident　parties

the　clubs　obey　the　laws　of　the　psychology　of　crowds。　　They　are

consequently　subjugated　by　leaders。　　This　we　see　especially　in

the　Jacobin　Club；　which　was　dominated　by　Robespierre。



The　function　of　the　leader　of　a　club；　a　homogeneous　crowd；　is　far

more　difficult　than　that　of　a　leader　of　a　heterogeneous　crowd。　

The　latter　may　easily　be　led　by　harping　on　a　small　number　of

strings；　but　in　a　homogeneous　group　like　a　club；　whose

sentiments　and　interests　are　identical；　the　leader　must

know　how　to　humour　them　and　is　often　himself　led。



Part　of　the　strength　of　homogeneous　agglomerations　resides　in

their　anonymity。　　We　know　that　during　the　Commune　of　1871　a　few

anonymous　orders　sufficed　to　effect　the　burning　of　the　finest

monuments　of　Paris：　the　Hotel　de　Ville；　the　Tuileries；　the

Cour　des　Comptes；　the　buildings　of　the　Legion　of　Honour；　&c。　　A

brief　order　from　the　anonymous　committees；　‘‘Burn　Finances；　burn

Tuileries；''　&c。；　was　immediately　executed。　　An　unlooked…for

chance　only　saved　the　Louvre　and　its　collections。　　We　know　too

what　religious　attention　is　in　our　days　accorded　to　the　most

absurd　injunctions　of　the　anonymous　leaders　of　the　trades　unions。



The　clubs　of　Paris　and　the　insurrectionary　Commune　were　not　less

scrupulously　obeyed　at　the　time　of　the　Revolution。　　An　order

emanating　from　these　was　sufficient　to　hurl　upon　the　Assembly　a

popular　army　which　dictated　its　wishes。



Summing　up　the　history　of　the　Convention　in　another　chapter；　we

shall　see　how　frequent　were　these　irruptions；　and　with　what

servility　the　Assembly；　which　according　to　the　legends　was　so

powerful　bowed　itself　before　the　most　imperative　injunctions　of　a

handful　of　rioters。　　Instructed　by　experience；　the　Directory

closed　the　clubs　and　put　an　end　to　the　invasion　of　the　populace

by　energetically　shooting　them　down。



The　Convention　had　early　grasped　the　superiority　of　homogeneous

groups　over　heterogeneous　assemblies　in　matters　of　government；

which　is　why　it　subdivided　itself　into　committees　composed　each

of　a　limited　number　of　individuals。　　These　committeesof

Public　Safety；　of　Finance；　&c。formed　small　sovereign　assemblies

in　the　midst　of　the　larger　Assembly。　　Their　power　was　held　in

check　only　by　that　of　the　clubs。



The　preceding　considerations　show　the　power　of　groups　over　the

wills　of　the　members　composing　them。　　If　the　group　is

homogeneous；　this　action　is　considerable；　if　it　is　heterogeneous；

it　is　less　considerable　but　may　still　become　important；　either

because　the　more　powerful　groups　of　an　assembly　will　dominate

those　whose　cohesion　is　weaker　or　because　certain　contagious

sentiments　will　often　extend　themselves　to　all　the　members　of　an

assembly。



A　memorable　example　of　this　influence　of　groups　occurred　at　the

time　of　the　Revolution；　when；　on　the　night　of　the　4th　of　August；

the　nobles　voted；　on　the　proposition　of　one　of　their　members；　the

abandonment　of　feudal　privileges。　　Yet　we　know　that　the

Revolution　resulted　in　part　from　the　refusal　of　the　clergy　and

the　nobles　to　renounce　their　privileges。　　Why　did　they　refuse　to

renounce　them　at　first？　　Simply　because　men　in　a　crowd　do　not　act

as　the　same　men　singly。　　Individually　no　member　of　the　nobility

would　ever　have　abandoned　his　rights。



Of　this　influence　of　assemblies　upon　their　members　Napoleon　at

St。　Helena　cited　some　curious　examples：　　‘‘Nothing　was　more

common　than　to　meet　with　men　at　this　period　quite　unlike　the

reputation　that　their　acts　and　words　would　seem　to　justify。　　For

instance；　one　might　have　supposed　Monge　to　be　a　terrible　fellow；

when　war　was　decided　upon　he　mounted　the　tribune　of　the　Jacobins