the psychology of revolution-第25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！



often　been　expressed。　　For　a　long　time　they　had　inspired　the

politics　of　England。　　Two　thousand　years　earlier　the　Greek　and

Latin　authors　had　written　in　defence　of　liberty；　had

cursed　tyrants；　and　proclaimed　the　rights　of　popular　sovereignty。



The　middle　classes　who　effected　the　Revolution；　although；　like

their　fathers；　they　had　learned　all　these　things　in　text…books；

were　not　in　any　degree　moved　by　them；　because　the　moment　when

such　ideas　could　move　them　had　not　arrived。　　How　should　the

people　have　been　impressed　by　them　at　a　time　when　all　men　were

accustomed　to　regard　all　hierarchies　as　natural　necessities？



The　actual　influence　of　the　philosophers　in　the　genesis　of　the

Revolution　was　not　that　which　was　attributed　to　them。　　They

revealed　nothing　new；　but　they　developed　the　critical　spirit

which　no　dogma　can　resist　once　the　way　is　prepared　for　its

downfall。



Under　the　influence　of　this　developing　critical　spirit　things

which　were　no　longer　very　greatly　respected　came　to　be　respected

less　and　less。　　When　tradition　and　prestige　had　disappeared　the

social　edifice　suddenly　fell。



This　progressive　disaggregation　finally　descended　to　the　people；

but　was　not　commenced　by　the　people。　　The　people　follows

examples；　but　never　sets　them。



The　philosophers；　who　could　not　have　exerted　any　influence　over

the　people；　did　exert　a　great　influence　over　the　enlightened

portion　of　the　nation。　　The　unemployed　nobility；　who　had　long

been　ousted　from　their　old　functions；　and　who　were　consequently

inclined　to　be　censorious；　followed　their　leadership。　　Incapable

of　foresight；　the　nobles　were　the　first　to　break　with　the

traditions　that　were　their　only　raison　d'etre。　　As　steeped

in　humanitarianism　and　rationalism　as　the　bourgeoisie　of　to…

day；　they　continually　sapped　their　own　privileges　by　their

criticisms。　　As　to…day；　the　most　ardent　reformers　were　found

among　the　favourites　of　fortune。　　The　aristocracy　encouraged

dissertations　on　the　social　contract；　the　rights　of　man；　and　the

equality　of　citizens。　　At　the　theatre　it　applauded　plays　which

criticised　privileges；　the　arbitrariness　and　the　incapacity　of

men　in　high　places；　and　abuses　of　all　kinds。



As　soon　as　men　lose　confidence　in　the　foundations　of　the　mental

framework　which　guides　their　conduct　they　feel　at　first　uneasy

and　then　discontented。　　All　classes　felt　their　old　motives　of

action　gradually　disappearing。　　Things　that　had　seemed　sacred　for

centuries　were　now　sacred　no　longer。



The　censorious　spirit　of　the　nobility　and　of　the　writers　of　the

day　would　not　have　sufficed　to　move　the　heavy　load　of　tradition；

but　that　its　action　was　added　to　that　of　other　powerful

influences。　　We　have　already　stated；　in　citing　Bossuet；　that

under　the　ancien　regime　the　religious　and　civil　governments；

widely　separated　in　our　days；　were　intimately　connected。　　To

injure　one　was　inevitably　to　injure　the　other。　　Now；　even　before

the　monarchical　idea　was　shaken　the　force　of　religious　tradition

was　greatly　diminished　among　cultivated　men。　　The　constant

progress　of　knowledge　had　sent　an　increasing　number　of　minds　from

theology　to　science　by　opposing　the　truth　observed　to　the　truth

revealed。



This　mental　evolution；　although　as　yet　very　vague；　was　sufficient

to　show　that　the　traditions　which　for　so　many　centuries　had

guided　men　had　not　the　value　which　had　been　attributed　to　them；

and　that　it　would　soon　be　necessary　to　replace　them。



But　where　discover　the　new　elements　which　might；　take　the　place

of　tradition？　　Where　seek　the　magic　ring　which　would　raise　a　new

social　edifice　on　the　remains　of　that　which　no　longer　contented

men？



Men　were　agreed　in　attributing　to　reason　the　power　that　tradition

and　the　gods　seemed　to　have　lost。　　How　could　its　force　be

doubted？　　Its　discoveries　having　been　innumerable；　was　it　not

legitimate　to　suppose　that　by　applying　it　to　the　construction　of

societies　it　would　entirely　transform　them？　　Its　possible

function　increased　very　rapidly　in　the　thoughts　of　the　more

enlightened；　in　proportion　as　tradition　seemed　more　and　more　to

be　distrusted。



The　sovereign　power　attributed　to　reason　must　be　regarded　as　the

culminating　idea　which　not　only　engendered　the　Revolution　but

governed　it　throughout。　　During　the　whole　Revolution　men　gave

themselves　up　to　the　most　persevering　efforts　to　break　with　the

past；　and　to　erect　society　upon　a　new　plan　dictated　by　logic。



Slowly　filtering　downward；　the　rationalistic　theories　of　the

philosophers　meant　to　the　people　simply　that　all　the　things　which

had　been　regarded　as　worthy　of　respect　were　now　no　longer　worthy。



Men　being　declared　equal；　the　old　masters　need　no　longer　be

obeyed。



The　multitude　easily　succeeded　in　ceasing　to　respect　what　the

upper　classes　themselves　no　longer　respected。　　When　the　barrier

of　respect　was　down　the　Revolution　was　accomplished。



The　first　result　of　this　new　mentality　was　a　general

insubordination。　　Mme。　Vigee　Lebrun　relates　that　on　the

promenade　at　Longchamps　men　of　the　people　leaped　on　the

footboards　of　the　carriages；　saying；　‘‘Next　year　you　will　be

behind　and　we　shall　be　inside。''



The　populace　was　not　alone　in　manifesting　insubordination　and

discontent。　　These　sentiments　were　general　on　the　eve　of　the

Revolution。　　‘‘The　lesser　clergy；''　says　Taine；　‘‘are　hostile　to

the　prelates；　the　provincial　gentry　to　the　nobility　of　the　court；

the　vassals　to　the　seigneurs；　the　peasants　to　the　townsmen；''　&c。



This　state　of　mind；　which　had　been　communicated　from　the　nobles

and　clergy　to　the　people；　also　invaded　the　army。　　At　the　moment

the　States　General　were　opened　Necker　said：　　‘‘We　are　not　sure　of

the　troops。''　　The　officers　were　becoming　humanitarian　and

philosophical。　　The　soldiers；　recruited　from　the　lowest　class　of

the　population；　did　not　philosophise；　but　they　no　longer　obeyed。



In　their　feeble　minds　the　ideas　of　equality　meant　simply　the

suppression　of　all　leaders　and　masters；　and　therefore　of　all

obedience。　　In　1790　more　than　twenty　regiments　threatened　their

officers；　and　sometimes；　as　at　Nancy；　threw　them　into　prison。



The　mental　anarchy　which；　after　spreading　through　all　the　classes

of　society；　finally　invaded　the　army　was　the　principal　cause　of

the　disappearance　of　the　ancien　regime。　　‘‘It　was　the

defection　of　the　army　affected　by　the　ideas　of　the　Third

Estate；''　wrote　Rivarol；　‘‘that　destroyed　royalty。''





2。　　The　supposed　Influence　of　the　Philosophers　of　the　Eighteenth

Century　upon　the　Genesis　of　the　RevolutionTheir　dislike　of

Democracy。





Although　the　philosophers　who　have　been　supposed　the　inspirers　of

the　French　Revolution　did　attack　certain　privileges　and

abuses；　we　must　not　for　that　reason　regard　them　as　partisans　of

popular　government。　　Democracy；　whose　role　in　Greek　history

was　familiar　to　them；　was　generally　highly　antipathetic　to　them。　

They　were　not　ignorant　of　the　destruction　and　violence　which　are

its　invariable　accompaniments；　and　knew　that　in　the　time　of

Aristotle　it　was　already　defined　as　‘‘a　State　in　which

everything；　even　the　law；　depends　on　the　multitude　set　up　as　a

tyrant　and　governed　by　a　few　declamatory　speakers。''



Pierre　Bayle；　the　true　forerunner　of　Voltaire；　recalled　in　the

following　terms　the　consequences　of　popular　government　in

Athens：



‘‘If　one　considers　this　history；　which　displays　at　great　length

the　tumult　of　the　assemblies；　the　factions　dividing　the　city；　the

seditious　disturbing　it；　the　most　illustrious　subjects

persecuted；　exiled；　and　punished　by　death　at　the　will　of　a

violent　windbag；　one　would　conclude　that　this　people；　which　so

prided　itself　on　its　liberty；　was　really　the　slave　of　a　small

number　of　caballers；　whom　they　called　demagogues；　and　who　made　it

turn　now　in　this　direction；　now　in　that；　as　their　passions

changed；　almost　as　the　sea　heaps　the　waves　now　one　way；　now

another；　according　to　the　winds　which　trouble　it。　　You　will　seek

in　vain　in　Macedonia；　which　was　a　monarchy；　for　as　many　examples

of　tyranny　as　Athenian　history　will　afford。''



Montesquieu　had　no　greater　admiration　for　the　democracy。　　Having

described　the　three　forms　of　governmentrepublican；　monarchical；

and　despotiche　shows　very　clearly　what　popular　government　may

lead　to：



‘‘Men　were　free　with　laws；　men　would　fain　be　free　without

them；　what　was　a　maxim　is　called　severity；　what　was　order　is

called　hindrance。　　Formerly　the　welfare　of　individuals

constituted　the　public　wealth；　but　now　the　public　wealth　becomes

the　patrimony　of　individuals。　　The　republic　is　spoil；　and　its

strength　is　merely　the　power　of　a　few　citizens　and　the　licence　of

all。''



‘‘。　。　。　Little　petty　tyrants　spring　up　who　have　all　the　vices　of

a　single　tyrant。　　Very　soon　what　is　left　of　liberty　becomes

untenable；　a　single　tyrant　arises；　and　the　people　loses　all；　even

the　advantages　of　corruption。



‘‘Democracy　has　therefore　two　extremes　to　avoid；　the　extr