the psychology of revolution-第2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！



transitory　condensation。



Despite　its　conjectural　side；　by　virtue　of　which　it　to　some

extent　escapes　the　severest　form　of　criticism；　history　has　not

been　free　from　this　universal　revision。　　There　is　no　longer　a

single　one　of　its　phases　of　which　we　can　say　that　it　is　certainly

known。　　What　appeared　to　be　definitely　acquired　is　now　once　more

put　in　question。



Among　the　events　whose　study　seemed　completed　was　the　French

Revolution。　　Analysed　by　several　generations　of　writers；　one

might　suppose　it　to　be　perfectly　elucidated。　　What　new　thing　can

be　said　of　it；　except　in　modification　of　some　of　its　details？



And　yet　its　most　positive　defenders　are　beginning　to　hesitate　in

their　judgments。　　Ancient　evidence　proves　to　be　far　from

impeccable。　　The　faith　in　dogmas　once　held　sacred　is　shaken。　　The

latest　literature　of　the　Revolution　betrays　these　uncertainties。　

Having　related；　men　are　more　and　more　chary　of　drawing

conclusions。



Not　only　are　the　heroes　of　this　great　drama　discussed　without

indulgence；　but　thinkers　are　asking　whether　the　new　dispensation

which　followed　the　ancien　regime　would　not　have　established

itself　naturally；　without　violence；　in　the　course　of　progressive

civilisation。　　The　results　obtained　no　longer　seem　in

correspondence　either　with　their　immediate　cost　or　with　the

remoter　consequences　which　the　Revolution　evoked　from　the

possibilities　of　history。



Several　causes　have　led　to　the　revision　of　this　tragic　period。　

Time　has　calmed　passions；　numerous　documents　have　gradually

emerged　from　the　archives；　and　the　historian　is　learning　to

interpret　them　independently。



But　it　is　perhaps　modern　psychology　that　has　most　effectually

influenced　our　ideas；　by　enabling　us　more　surely　to　read　men　and

the　motives　of　their　conduct。



Among　those　of　its　discoveries　which　are　henceforth　applicable　to

history　we　must　mention；　above　all；　a　more　profound　understanding

of　ancestral　influences；　the　laws　which　rule　the　actions　of　the

crowd；　data　relating　to　the　disaggregation　of　personality；　mental

contagion；　the　unconscious　formation　of　beliefs；　and　the

distinction　between　the　various　forms　of　logic。



To　tell　the　truth；　these　applications　of　science；　which　are

utilised　in　this　book；　have　not　been　so　utilised　hitherto。　

Historians　have　generally　stopped　short　at　the　study　of

documents；　and　even　that　study　is　sufficient　to　excite　the　doubts

of　which　I　have　spoken。





The　great　events　which　shape　the　destinies　of　peoples

revolutions；　for　example；　and　the　outbreak　of　religious　beliefs

are　sometimes　so　difficult　to　explain　that　one　must　limit　oneself

to　a　mere　statement。



From　the　time　of　my　first　historical　researches　I　have　been

struck　by　the　impenetrable　aspect　of　certain　essential　phenomena；

those　relating　to　the　genesis　of　beliefs　especially；　I　felt

convinced　that　something　fundamental　was　lacking　that　was

essential　to　their　interpretation。　　Reason　having　said　all　it

could　say；　nothing　more　could　be　expected　of　it；　and　other　means

must　be　sought　of　comprehending　what　had　not　been　elucidated。



For　a　long　time　these　important　questions　remained　obscure　to　me。　

Extended　travel；　devoted　to　the　study　of　the　remnants　of　vanished

civilisations；　had　not　done　much　to　throw　light　upon　them。



Reflecting　upon　it　continually；　I　was　forced　to　recognise　that

the　problem　was　composed　of　a　series　of　other　problems；　which　I

should　have　to　study　separately。　　This　I　did　for　a　period　of

twenty　years；　presenting　the　results　of　my　researches　in　a

succession　of　volumes。



One　of　the　first　was　devoted　to　the　study　of　the　psychological

laws　of　the　evolution　of　peoples。　　Having　shown　that　the

historic　racesthat　is；　the　races　formed　by　the　hazards　of

historyfinally　acquired　psychological　characteristics　as　stable

as　their　anatomical　characteristics；　I　attempted　to　explain　how　a

people　transforms　its　institutions；　its　languages；　and　its　arts。　

I　explained　in　the　same　work　why　it　was　that　individual

personalities；　under　the　influence　of　sudden　variations　of

environment；　might　be　entirely　disaggregated。



But　besides　the　fixed　collectivities　formed　by　the　peoples；　there

are　mobile　and　transitory　collectivities　known　as　crowds。　　Now

these　crowds　or　mobs；　by　the　aid　of　which　the　great　movements　of

history　are　accomplished；　have　characteristics　absolutely

different　from　those　of　the　individuals　who　compose　them。　　What

are　these　characteristics；　and　how　are　they　evolved？　　This　new

problem　was　examined　in　The　Psychology　of　the　Crowd。



Only　after　these　studies　did　I　begin　to　perceive　certain

influences　which　had　escaped　me。



But　this　was　not　all。　　Among　the　most　important　factors　of

history　one　was　preponderantthe　factor　of　beliefs。　　How　are

these　beliefs　born；　and　are　they　really　rational　and　voluntary；

as　was　long　taught？　　Are　they　not　rather　unconscious　and

independent　of　all　reason？　　A　difficult　question；　which　I　dealt

with　in　my　last　book；　Opinions　and　Beliefs。



So　long　as　psychology　regards　beliefs　as　voluntary　and　rational

they　will　remain　inexplicable。　　Having　proved　that　they　are

usually　irrational　and　always　involuntary；　I　was　able　to　propound

the　solution　of　this　important　problem；　how　it　was　that　beliefs

which　no　reason　could　justify　were　admitted　without

difficulty　by　the　most　enlightened　spirits　of　all　ages。



The　solution　of　the　historical　difficulties　which　had　so　long

been　sought　was　thenceforth　obvious。　　I　arrived　at　the　conclusion

that　beside　the　rational　logic　which　conditions　thought；　and　was

formerly　regarded　as　our　sole　guide；　there　exist　very　different

forms　of　logic：　affective　logic；　collective　logic；　and　mystic

logic；　which　usually　overrule　the　reason　and　engender　the

generative　impulses　of　our　conduct。



This　fact　well　established；　it　seemed　to　me　evident　that　if　a

great　number　of　historical　events　are　often　uncomprehended；　it　is

because　we　seek　to　interpret　them　in　the　light　of　a　logic　which

in　reality　has　very　little　influence　upon　their　genesis。





All　these　researches；　which　are　here　summed　up　in　a　few　lines；

demanded　long　years　for　their　accomplishment。　　Despairing　of

completing　them；　I　abandoned　them　more　than　once　to　return　to

those　labours　of　the　laboratory　in　which　one　is　always　sure　of

skirting　the　truth　and　of　acquiring　fragments　at　least　of

certitude。



But　while　it　is　very　interesting　to　explore　the　world　of　material

phenomena；　it　is　still　more　so　to　decipher　men；　for　which　reason

I　have　always　been　led　back　to　psychology。



Certain　principles　deduced　from　my　researches　appearing　likely　to

prove　fruitful；　I　resolved　to　apply　them　to　the　study　of　concrete

instances；　and　was　thus　led　to　deal　with　the　Psychology　of

Revolutionsnotably　that　of　the　French　Revolution。



Proceeding　in　the　analysis　of　our　great　Revolution；　the

greater　part　of　the　opinions　determined　by　the　reading　of　books

deserted　me　one　by　one；　although　I　had　considered　them

unshakable。



To　explain　this　period　we　must　consider　it　as　a　whole；　as　many

historians　have　done。　　It　is　composed　of　phenomena　simultaneous

but　independent　of　one　another。



Each　of　its　phases　reveals　events　engendered　by　psychological

laws　working　with　the　regularity　of　clockwork。　　The　actors　in

this　great　drama　seem　to　move　like　the　characters　of　a　previously

determined　drama。　　Each　says　what　he　must　say；　acts　as　he　is

bound　to　act。



To　be　sure；　the　actors　in　the　revolutionary　drama　differed　from

those　of　a　written　drama　in　that　they　had　not　studied　their

parts；　but　these　were　dictated　by　invisible　forces。



Precisely　because　they　were　subjected　to　the　inevitable

progression　of　logics　incomprehensible　to　them　we　see　them　as

greatly　astonished　by　the　events　of　which　they　were　the　heroes　as

are　we　ourselves。　　Never　did　they　suspect　the　invisible　powers

which　forced　them　to　act。　　They　were　the　masters　neither　of　their

fury　nor　their　weakness。　　They　spoke　in　the　name　of　reason；

pretending　to　be　guided　by　reason；　but　in　reality　it　was　by　no

means　reason　that　impelled　them。



‘‘The　decisions　for　which　we　are　so　greatly　reproached；''　wrote

Billaud…Varenne；　‘‘were　more　often　than　otherwise　not　intended　or

desired　by　us　two　days　or　even　one　day　beforehand：　the　crisis

alone　evoked　them。''



Not　that　we　must　consider　the　events　of　the　Revolution　as

dominated　by　an　imperious　fatality。　　The　readers　of　our　works

will　know　that　we　recognise　in　the　man　of　superior　qualities　the

role　of　averting　fatalities。　　But　he　can　dissociate　himself

only　from　a　few　of　such；　and　is　often　powerless　before　the

sequence　of　events　which　even　at　their　origin　could　scarcely　be

ruled。　　The　scientist　knows　how　to　destroy　the　microbe　before　it

has　time　to　act；　but　he　knows　himself　powerless　to　prevent　the

evolution　of　the　resulting　malady。





When　any　question　gives　rise　to　violently　contradictory　opinions

we　may　be　sur