the psychology of revolution-第26部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


the　advantages　of　corruption。



‘‘Democracy　has　therefore　two　extremes　to　avoid；　the　extreme　of

the　spirit　of　equality　leads　to　the　despotism　of　a　single　person；

as　the　despotism　of　a　single　person　leads　to　conquest。''



The　ideal　of　Montesquieu　was　the　English　constitutional

government；　which　prevented　the　monarchy　from　degenerating　into

despotism。　　Otherwise　the　influence　of　this　philosopher　at　the

moment　of　the　Revolution　was　very　slight。



As　for　the　Encyclopaedists；　to　whom　such　a　considerable

role　is　attributed；　they　hardly　dealt　with　politics；

excepting　d'Holbach；　a　liberal　monarchist　like　Voltaire　and

Diderot。　　They　wrote　chiefly　in　defence　of　individual　liberty；

opposing　the　encroachments　of　the　Church；　at　that　time　extremely

intolerant　and　inimical　to　philosophers。　　Being　neither

Socialists　nor　democrats；　the　Revolution　could　not　utilise　any　of

their　principles。



Voltaire　himself　was　by　no　means　a　partisan　of　democracy。



‘‘Democracy；''　he　said；　‘‘seems　only　to　suit　a　very　small

country；　and　even　then　it　must　be　fortunately　situated。　

Little　as　it　may　be；　it　will　make　many　mistakes；　because　it　will

be　composed　of　men。　　Discord　will　prevail　there　as　in　a　convent

full　of　monks；　but　there　will　be　no　St。　Bartholomew's　day；　no

Irish　massacres；　no　Sicilian　Vespers；　no　Inquisition；　no

condemnation　to　the　galleys　for　having　taken　water　from　the　sea

without　paying　for　it；　unless　we　suppose　this　republic　to　be

composed　of　devils　in　a　corner　of　hell。''



All　these　men　who　are　supposed　to　have　inspired　the　Revolution

had　opinions　which　were　far　from　subversive；　and　it　is　really

difficult　to　see　that　they　had　any　real　influence　on　the

development　of　the　revolutionary　movement。　　Rousseau　was　one　of

the　very　few　democratic　philosophers　of　his　age；　which　is　why　his

Contrat　Social　became　the　Bible　of　the　men　of　the　Terror。　　It

seemed　to　furnish　the　rational　justification　necessary　to　excuse

the　acts　deriving　from　unconscious　mystic　and　affective　impulses

which　no　philosophy　had　inspired。



To　be　quite　truthful；　the　democratic　instincts　of　Rousseau　were

by　no　means　above　suspicion。　　He　himself　considered　that　his

projects　for　social　reorganisation；　based　upon　popular

sovereignty；　could　be　applied　only　to　a　very　small　State；　and

when　the　Poles　asked　him　for　a　draft　democratic　Constitution　he

advised　them　to　choose　a　hereditary　monarch。



Among　the　theories　of　Rousseau　that　relating　to　the　perfection　of

the　primitive　social　state　had　a　great　success。　　He　asserted；

together　with　various　writers　of　his　time；　that　primitive　mankind

was　perfect；　it　was　corrupted　only　by　society。　　By　modifying

society　by　means　of　good　laws　one　might　bring　back　the

happiness　of　the　early　world。　　Ignorant　of　all　psychology；　he

believed　that　men　were　the　same　throughout　time　and　space　and

that　they　could　all　be　ruled　by　the　same　laws　and　institutions。　

This　was　then　the　general　belief。　　‘‘The　vices　and　virtues　of　the

people；''　wrote　Helvetius；　‘‘are　always　a　necessary　effect　of　its

legislation。　。　。　。　　How　can　we　doubt　that　virtue　is　in　the　case

of　all　peoples　the　result　of　the　wisdom；　more　or　less　perfect；　of

the　administration？''



There　could　be　no　greater　mistake。





3。　　The　Philosophical　Ideas　of　the　Bourgeoisie　at　the　Time　of

the　Revolution。





It　is　by　no　means　easy　to　say　just　what　were　the　social　and

political　conceptions　of　a　Frenchman　of　the　middle　classes　at　the

moment　of　the　Revolution。　　They　might　be　reduced　to　a　few

formulae　concerning　fraternity；　equality；　and　popular

government；　summed　up　in　the　celebrated　Declaration　of　the　Rights

of　Man；　of　which　we　shall　have　occasion　to　quote　a　few　passages。



The　philosophers　of　the　eighteenth　century　do　not　seem　to　have

been　very　highly　rated　by　the　men　of　the　Revolution。　　Rarely　are

they　quoted　in　the　speeches　of　the　time。　　Hypnotised　by　their

classical　memories　of　Greece　and　Rome；　the　new　legislators　re…

read　their　Plato　and　their　Plutarch。　　They　wished　to　revive　the

constitution　of　Sparta；　with　its　manners；　its　frugal　habits；　and

its　laws。



Lycurgus；　Solon；　Miltiades；　Manlius　Torquatus；　Brutus；　Mucius

Scaevola；　even　the　fabulous　Minos　himself；　became　as　familiar

in　the　tribune　as　in　the　theatre；　and　the　public　went　crazy　over

them。　　The　shades　of　the　heroes　of　antiquity　hovered　over

the　revolutionary　assemblies。　　Posterity　alone　has　replaced　them

by　the　shades　of　the　philosophers　of　the　eighteenth　century。



We　shall　see　that　in　reality　the　men　of　this　period；　generally

represented　as　bold　innovators　guided　by　subtle　philosophers；

professed　to　effect　no　innovations　whatever；　but　to　return　to　a

past　long　buried　in　the　mists　of　history；　and　which；　moreover；

they　scarcely　ever　in　the　least　understood。



The　more　reasonable；　who　did　not　go　so　far　back　for　their　models；

aimed　merely　at　adopting　the　English　constitutional　system；　of

which　Montesquieu　and　Voltaire　had　sung　the　praises；　and　which

all　nations　were　finally　to　imitate　without　violent　crises。



Their　ambitions　were　confined　to　a　desire　to　perfect　the　existing

monarchy；　not　to　overthrow　it。　　But　in　time　of　revolution　men

often　take　a　very　different　path　from　that　they　propose　to　take。　

At　the　time　of　the　convocation　of　the　States　General　no　one　would

ever　have　supposed　that　a　revolution　of　peaceful　bourgeoisie

and　men　of　letters　would　rapidly　be　transformed　into　one　of　the

most　sanguinary　dictatorships　of　history。







CHAPTER　IV



PSYCHOLOGICAL　ILLUSIONS　RESPECTING　THE　FRENCH　REVOLUTION



1。　Illusions　respecting　Primitive　Man；　the　Return　to　a　State　of

Nature；　and　the　Psychology　of　the　People。



We　have　already　repeated；　and　shall　again　repeat；　that　the　errors

of　a　doctrine　do　not　hinder　its　propagation；　so　that　all　we　have

to　consider　here　is　its　influence　upon　men's　minds。



But　although　the　criticism　of　erroneous　doctrines　is　seldom　of

practical　utility；　it　is　extremely　interesting　from　a

psychological　point　of　view。　　The　philosopher　who　wishes　to

understand　the　working　of　men's　minds　should　always　carefully

consider　the　illusions　which　they　live　with。　　Never；　perhaps；　in

the　course　of　history　have　these　illusions　appeared　so　profound

and　so　numerous　as　during　the　Revolution。



One　of　the　most　prominent　was　the　singular　conception　of　the

nature　of　our　first　ancestors　and　primitive　societies。　

Anthropology　not　having　as　yet　revealed　the　conditions　of　our

remoter　forbears；　men　supposed；　being　influenced　by　the　legends

of　the　Bible；　that　man　had　issued　perfect　from　the　hands　of　the

Creator。　　The　first　societies　were　models　which　were　afterwards

ruined　by　civilisation；　but　to　which　mankind　must　return。　

The　return　to　the　state　of　nature　was　very　soon　the　general　cry。　

‘‘The　fundamental　principle　of　all　morality；　of　which　I　have

treated　in　my　writings；''　said　Rousseau；　‘‘is　that　man　is　a　being

naturally　good；　loving　justice　and　order。''



Modern　science；　by　determining；　from　the　surviving　remnants；　the

conditions　of　life　of　our　first　ancestors；　has　long　ago　shown　the

error　of　this　doctrine。　　Primitive　man　has　become　an　ignorant　and

ferocious　brute；　as　ignorant　as　the　modern　savage　of　goodness；

morality；　and　pity。　　Governed　only　by　his　instinctive　impulses；

he　throws　himself　on　his　prey　when　hunger　drives　him　from　his

cave；　and　falls　upon　his　enemy　the　moment　he　is　aroused　by

hatred。　　Reason；　not　being　born；　could　have　no　hold　over　his

instincts。



The　aim　of　civilisation；　contrary　to　all　revolutionary　beliefs；

has　been　not　to　return　to　the　state　of　nature　but　to　escape　from

it。　　It　was　precisely　because　the　Jacobins　led　mankind　back　to

the　primitive　condition　by　destroying　all　the　social　restraints

without　which　no　civilisation　can　exist　that　they　transformed　a

political　society　into　a　barbarian　horde。



The　ideas　of　these　theorists　concerning　the　nature　of　man　were

about　as　valuable　as　those　of　a　Roman　general　concerning　the

power　of　omens。　　Yet　their　influence　as　motives　of　action　was

considerable。　　The　Convention　was　always　inspired　by　such　ideas。



The　errors　concerning　our　primitive　ancestors　were　excusable

enough；　since　before　modern　discoveries　had　shown　us　the　real

conditions　of　their　existence　these　were　absolutely　unknown。　　But

the　absolute　ignorance　of　human　psychology　displayed　by　the　men

of　the　Revolution　is　far　less　easy　to　understand。



It　would　really　seem　as　though　the　philosophers　and　writers　of

the　eighteenth　century　must　have　been　totally　deficient　in　the

smallest　faculty　of　observation。　　They　lived　amidst　their

contemporaries　without　seeing　them　and　without　understanding

them。　　Above　all；　they　had　not　a　suspicion　of　the　true　nature　of

the　popular　mind。　　The　man　of　the　people　always　appeared　to　them

in　the　likeness　of　the　chimerical　model　created　by　their　dreams。　

As　ignorant　of　psychology　as　of　the　teachings　of　history；　they

considered