the psychology of revolution-第17章

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！





All　writers　on　the　subject　have　believed　that　they　have　related

its　course　with　impartiality；　but　in　general　they　have　merely

supported　contradictory　theories　of　peculiar　simplicity。　　The

documents　being　innumerable　and　contradictory；　their　conscious　or

unconscious　choice　has　readily　enabled　them　to　justify　their

respective　theories。



The　older　historians　of　the　RevolutionThiers；　Quinet；　and；

despite　his　talent；　Michelet　himself；　are　somewhat　eclipsed　to…

day。　　Their　doctrines　were　by　no　means　complicated；　a　historic

fatalism　prevails　generally　in　their　work。　　Thiers　regarded　the

Revolution　as　the　result　of　several　centuries　of　absolute

monarchy；　and　the　Terror　as　the　necessary　consequence　of　foreign

invasion。　　Quinet　described　the　excesses　of　1793　as　the　result　of

a　long…continued　despotism；　but　declared　that　the　tyranny　of　the

Convention　was　unnecessary；　and　hampered　the　work　of　the

Revolution。　　Michelet　saw　in　this　last　merely　the　work　of　the

people；　whom　he　blindly　admired；　and　commenced　the　glorification

continued　by　other　historians。



The　former　reputation　of　all　these　historians　has　been　to　a　great

extent　effaced　by　that　of　Taine。　　Although　equally　impassioned；

he　threw　a　brilliant　light　upon　the　revolutionary　period；　and　it

will　doubtless　be　long　before　his　work　is　superseded。



Work　so　important　is　bound　to　show　faults。　　Taine　is　admirable　in

the　representation　of　facts　and　persons；　but　he　attempts　to　judge

by　the　standard　of　rational　logic　events　which　were　not　dictated

by　reason；　and　which；　therefore；　he　cannot　interpret。　　His

psychology；　excellent　when　it　is　merely　descriptive；　is　very　weak

as　soon　as　it　becomes　explanatory。　　To　affirm　that　Robespierre

was　a　pedantic　‘‘swotter''　is　not　to　reveal　the　causes　of　his

absolute　power　over　the　Convention；　at　a　time　when　he　had　spent

several　months　in　decimating　it　with　perfect　impunity。　　It　has

very　justly　been　said　of　Taine　that　he　saw　well　and　understood

little。



Despite　these　restrictions　his　work　is　highly　remarkable　and　has

not　been　equalled。　　We　may　judge　of　his　immense　influence　by　the

exasperation　which　he　causes　among　the　faithful　defenders　of

Jacobin　orthodoxy；　of　which　M。　Aulard；　professor　at　the　Sorbonne；

is　to…day　the　high　priest。　　The　latter　has　devoted　two　years　to

writing　a　pamphlet　against　Taine；　every　line　of　which　is　steeped

in　passion。　　All　this　time　spent　in　rectifying　a　few　material

errors　which　are　not　really　significant　has　only　resulted　in　the

perpetration　of　the　very　same　errors。



Reviewing　his　work；　M。　A。　Cochin　shows　that　M。　Aulard　has　at

least　on　every　other　occasion　been　deceived　by　his　quotations；

whereas　Taine　erred　far　more　rarely。　　The　same　historian　shows

also　that　we　must　not　trust　M。　Aulard's　sources。



‘‘These　sourcesproceedings；　pamphlets；　journals；　and　the

speeches　and　writings　of　patriotsare　precisely　the　authentic

publications　of　patriotism；　edited　by　patriots；　and　edited；　as　a

rule；　for　the　benefit　of　the　public。　　He　ought　to　have　seen　in

all　this　simply　the　special　pleading　of　the　defendant：　he　had；

before　his　eyes；　a　ready…made　history　of　the　Revolution；　which

presents；　side　by　side　with　each　of　the　acts　of　the　‘People；'

from　the　massacres　of　September　to　the　law　of　Prairial；　a　ready…

made　explanation　according　to　the　republican　system　of　defence。''



Perhaps　the　fairest　criticism　that　one　can　make　of　the　work　of

Taine　is　that　it　was　left　incomplete。　　He　studied　more　especially

the　role　of　the　populace　and　its　leaders　during　the

revolutionary　period。　　This　inspired　him　with　pages　vibrating

with　an　indignation　which　we　can　still　admire；　but　several

important　aspects　of　the　Revolution　escaped　him。



Whatever　one　may　think　of　the　Revolution；　an　irreducible

difference　will　always　exist　between　historians　of　the　school　of

Taine　and　those　of　the　school　of　M。　Aulard。　　The　latter　regards

the　sovereign　people　as　admirable；　while　the　former　shows　us　that

when　abandoned　to　its　instincts　and　liberated　from　all　social

restraint　it　relapses　into　primitive　savagery。　　The　conception　of

M。　Aulard；　entirely　contrary　to　the　lessons　of　the　psychology　of

crowds；　is　none　the　less　a　religious　dogma　in　the　eyes　of　modern

Jacobins。　　They　write　of　the　Revolution　according　to　the　methods

of　believers；　and　take　for　learned　works　the　arguments　of　virtual

theologians。



2。　　The　Theory　of　Fatalism　in　respect　of　the　Revolution。





Advocates　and　detractors　of　the　Revolution　often　admit　the

fatality　of　revolutionary　events。　　This　theory　is　well

synthetised　in　the　following　passage　from　the　History　of　the

Revolution；　by　Emile　Olivier：



‘‘No　man　could　oppose　it。　　The　blame　belongs　neither　to　those　who

perished　nor　to　those　who　survived；　there　was　no　individual　force

capable　of　changing　the　elements　and　of　foreseeing　the　events

which　were　born　of　the　nature　of　things　and　circumstances。''



Taine　himself　inclines　to　this　idea：



‘‘At　the　moment　when　the　States　General　were　opened　the　course　of

ideas　and　events　was　not　only　determined　but　even　visible。　　Each

generation　unwittingly　bears　within　itself　its　future　and　its

past；　from　the　latter　its　destinies　might　have　been　foretold　long

before　the　issue。''



Other　modern　authors；　who　profess　no　more　indulgence　for　the

violence　of　the　revolutionaries　than　did　Taine；　are　equally

convinced　of　this　fatality。　　M。　Sorel；　after　recalling　the　saying

of　Bossuet　concerning　the　revolutions　of　antiquity：　　‘‘Everything

is　surprising　if　we　only　consider　particular　causes；　and　yet

everything　goes　forward　in　regular　sequence；''　expresses　an

intention　which　he　very　imperfectly　realises：　‘‘to　show　in　the

Revolution；　which　seems　to　some　the　subversion　and　to　others　the

regeneration　of　the　old　European　world；　the　natural　and　necessary

result　of　the　history　of　Europe；　and　to　show；　moreover；　that　this

revolution　had　no　resultnot　even　the　most　unexpectedthat　did

not　ensue　from　this　history；　and　was　not　explained　by　the

precedents　of　the　ancien　regime。''



Guizot　also　had　formerly　attempted　to　prove　that　our　Revolution；

which　he　quite　wrongly　compared　to　that　of　England；　was　perfectly

natural　and　effected　no　innovations：



‘‘Far　from　having　broken　with　the　natural　course　of　events　in

Europe；　neither　the　English　revolution　nor　our　own　did；　intended；

or　said　anything　that　had　not　been　said；　intended；　and　done　a

hundred　years　before　its　outbreak。



‘‘　。　。　。　Whether　we　regard　the　general　doctrines　of　the　two

revolutions　or　the　application　made　of　themwhether　we　deal　with

the　government　of　the　State　or　with　the　civil　legislation；　with

property　or　with　persons；　with　liberty　or　with　power；　we　shall

find　nothing　of　which　the　invention　can　be　attributed　to　them；

nothing　that　will　not　be　encountered　elsewhere；　or　that　was　not

at　least　originated　in　times　which　we　qualify　as　normal。''



All　these　assertions　merely　recall　the　banal　law　that　a

phenomenon　is　simply　the　consequence　of　previous　phenomena。　　Such

very　general　propositions　do　not　teach　us　much。



We　must　not　try　to　explain　too　many　events　by　the　principle　of

fatality　adopted　by　so　many　historians。　　I　have　elsewhere

discussed　the　significance　of　such　fatalities；　and　have　shown

that　the　whole　effort　of　civilisation　consists　in　trying　to

escape　therefrom。　　Certainly　history　is　full　of　necessities；　but

it　is　also　full　of　contingent　facts　which　were；　and　might　not

have　been。　　Napoleon　himself；　on　St。　Helena；　enumerated　six

circumstances　which　might　have　checked　his　prodigious　career。　　He

related；　notably；　that　on　taking　a　bath　at　Auxonne；　in　1786；　he

only　escaped　death　by　the　fortuitous　presence　of　a　sandbank。　　If

Bonaparte　had　died；　then　we　may　admit　that　another　general　would

have　arisen；　and　might　have　become　dictator。　　But　what　would　have

become　of　the　Imperial　epic　and　its　consequences　without

the　man　of　genius　who　led　our　victorious　armies　into　all　the

capitals　of　Europe？



It　is　permissible　to　consider　the　Revolution　as　being　partly　a

necessity；　but　it　was　above　allwhich　is　what　the　fatalistic

writers　already　cited　do　not　show　usa　permanent　struggle

between　theorists　who　were　imbued　with　a　new　ideal；　and　the

economic；　social；　and　political　laws　which　ruled　mankind；　and

which　they　did　not　understand。　　Not　understanding　them；　they

sought　in　vain　to　direct　the　course　of　events；　were　exasperated

at　their　failure；　and　finally　committed　every　species　of

violence。　　They　decreed　that　the　paper　money　known　as　assignats

should　be　accepted　as　the　equivalent　of　gold；　and　all　their

threats　could　not　prevent　the　fictitious　value　of　such　money

falling　almost　to　nothing。　　They　decreed　the　law　of　the　maximum；

and　it　merely　increased　the　evils　it　was　intended　to　remedy。　

Robespierre　declared　before　the　Convention　‘‘that　all　the　sans…

culottes　will　be　paid　at　the　expense　of　the　public　treasury；

which　will　be　fed　by　the　rich；''　and　in　spite　of　requisitions　and

the　guillotine　the　treasury　remained　empty。



Having　broken　all　human　restraints；　the　men　of　the　Revolution

finally　discovered　that　a　society　cannot　live　without　them；　but

when　they　sought　to　create　them　anew　they　saw　that　even　the

strongest　society；　though　supported　by　the　fear　of　the

guillotine；　could　not　replace　the　discipline　which　the　past　had

slowly　built　up　in　the　minds　of　men。　　As　for　understanding　the

evolution　of　society；　or　judging　men's　hearts　and　minds；　or

foreseeing　the　consequences　of　the　laws　they　enacted；　they

scarcely　attempted　to　do　so。



The　events　of　the　Revolution　did　not　ensue　from

irreducible　necessities。　　They　were　far　more　the　consequence　of

Jacobin　principles　than　of　circumstances；　and　might　have　been

quite　other　than　they　were。　　Would　the　Revolution　have　followed

the　same　path　if　Louis　XVI。　had　been　better　advised；　or　if　the

Constituent　Assembly　had　been　less　cowardly　in　times　of　popular

insurrection？　　The　theory　of　revolutionary　fatality　is　only

useful　to　justify　violence　by　presenting　it　as　inevitable。



Whether　we　are　dealing　with　science　or　with　history　we　must

beware　of　the　ignorance　which　takes　shelter　under　the　shibboleth

of　fatalism　Nature　was　formerly　full　of　a　host　of　fatalities

which　science　is　slowly　contriving　to　avoid。　　The　function　of　the

superior　man　is；　as　I　have　shown　elsewhere；　to　avert　such

fatalities。





3。　　The　Hesitations　of　recent　Historians　of　the　Revolution。





The　historians　whose　ideas　we　have　examined　in　the　preceding

chapter　were　extremely　positive　in　their　special　pleading。　

Confined　within　the　limits　of　belief；　they　did　not　attempt　to

penetrate　the　domain　of　knowledge。　　A　monarchical　writer　was

violently　hostile　to　the　Revolution；　and　a　liberal　writer　was　its

violent　apologist。



At　the　present　time　we　can　see　the　commencement　of　a　movement

which　will　surely　lead　to　the　study　of　the　Revolution　as　one　of

those　scie