the crowd-第9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！


neral；　Lord　Wolseley；　has　proved　in　a　recent　book　that　up　to　now　the　gravest　errors　of　fact　have　been　committed　with　regard　to　the　most　important　incidents　of　the　battle　of　Waterloofacts　that　hundreds　of　witnesses　had　nevertheless　attested。＇5＇


＇5＇　Do　we　know　in　the　case　of　one　single　battle　exactly　how　it　took　place？　　I　am　very　doubtful　on　the　point。　　We　know　who　were　the　conquerors　and　the　conquered；　but　this　is　probably　all。　　What　M。　D'Harcourt　has　said　with　respect　to　the　battle　of　Solferino；　which　he　witnessed　and　in　which　he　was　personally　engaged；　may　be　applied　to　all　battles〃The　generals　（informed；　of　course；　by　the　evidence　of　hundreds　of　witnesses）　forward　their　official　reports；　the　orderly　officers　modify　these　documents　and　draw　up　a　definite　narrative；　the　chief　of　the　staff　raises　objections　and　re…writes　the　whole　on　a　fresh　basis。　　It　is　carried　to　the　Marshal；　who　exclaims；　‘You　are　entirely　in　error；'　and　he　substitutes　a　fresh　edition。　　Scarcely　anything　remains　of　the　original　report。〃　　M。　D'Harcourt　relates　this　fact　as　proof　of　the　impossibility　of　establishing　the　truth　in　connection　with　the　most　striking；　the　best　observed　events。



Such　facts　show　us　what　is　the　value　of　the　testimony　of　crowds。　Treatises　on　logic　include　the　unanimity　of　numerous　witnesses　in　the　category　of　the　strongest　proofs　that　can　be　invoked　in　support　of　the　exactness　of　a　fact。　　Yet　what　we　know　of　the　psychology　of　crowds　shows　that　treatises　on　logic　need　on　this　point　to　be　rewritten。　　The　events　with　regard　to　which　there　exists　the　most　doubt　are　certainly　those　which　have　been　observed　by　the　greatest　number　of　persons。　　To　say　that　a　fact　has　been　simultaneously　verified　by　thousands　of　witnesses　is　to　say；　as　a　rule；　that　the　real　fact　is　very　different　from　the　accepted　account　of　it。

It　clearly　results　from　what　precedes　that　works　of　history　must　be　considered　as　works　of　pure　imagination。　　They　are　fanciful　accounts　of　ill…observed　facts；　accompanied　by　explanations　the　result　of　reflection。　　To　write　such　books　is　the　most　absolute　waste　of　time。　　Had　not　the　past　left　us　its　literary；　artistic；　and　monumental　works；　we　should　know　absolutely　nothing　in　reality　with　regard　to　bygone　times。　　Are　we　in　possession　of　a　single　word　of　truth　concerning　the　lives　of　the　great　men　who　have　played　preponderating　parts　in　the　history　of　humanitymen　such　as　Hercules；　Buddha；　or　Mahomet？　　In　all　probability　we　are　not。　　In　point　of　fact；　moreover；　their　real　lives　are　of　slight　importance　to　us。　　Our　interest　is　to　know　what　our　great　men　were　as　they　are　presented　by　popular　legend。　　It　is　legendary　heroes；　and　not　for　a　moment　real　heroes；　who　have　impressed　the　minds　of　crowds。

Unfortunately；　legendseven　although　they　have　been　definitely　put　on　record　by　bookshave　in　themselves　no　stability。　　The　imagination　of　the　crowd　continually　transforms　them　as　the　result　of　the　lapse　of　time　and　especially　in　consequence　of　racial　causes。　　There　is　a　great　gulf　fixed　between　the　sanguinary　Jehovah　of　the　Old　Testament　and　the　God　of　Love　of　Sainte　Therese；　and　the　Buddha　worshipped　in　China　has　no　traits　in　common　with　that　venerated　in　India。

It　is　not　even　necessary　that　heroes　should　be　separated　from　us　by　centuries　for　their　legend　to　be　transformed　by　the　imagination　of　the　crowd。　　The　transformation　occasionally　takes　place　within　a　few　years。　　In　our　own　day　we　have　seen　the　legend　of　one　of　the　greatest　heroes　of　history　modified　several　times　in　less　than　fifty　years。　　Under　the　Bourbons　Napoleon　became　a　sort　of　idyllic　and　liberal　philanthropist；　a　friend　of　the　humble　who；　according　to　the　poets；　was　destined　to　be　long　remembered　in　the　cottage。　　Thirty　years　afterwards　this　easy…going　hero　had　become　a　sanguinary　despot；　who；　after　having　usurped　power　and　destroyed　liberty；　caused　the　slaughter　of　three　million　men　solely　to　satisfy　his　ambition。　　At　present　we　are　witnessing　a　fresh　transformation　of　the　legend。　　When　it　has　undergone　the　influence　of　some　dozens　of　centuries　the　learned　men　of　the　future；　face　to　face　with　these　contradictory　accounts；　will　perhaps　doubt　the　very　existence　of　the　hero；　as　some　of　them　now　doubt　that　of　Buddha；　and　will　see　in　him　nothing　more　than　a　solar　myth　or　a　development　of　the　legend　of　Hercules。　　They　will　doubtless　console　themselves　easily　for　this　uncertainty；　for；　better　initiated　than　we　are　to…day　in　the　characteristics　and　psychology　of　crowds；　they　will　know　that　history　is　scarcely　capable　of　preserving　the　memory　of　anything　except　myths。


3。　THE　EXAGGERATION　AND　INGENUOUSNESS　OF　THE　SENTIMENTS　OF　CROWDS。


Whether　the　feelings　exhibited　by　a　crowd　be　good　or　bad；　they　present　the　double　character　of　being　very　simple　and　very　exaggerated。　　On　this　point；　as　on　so　many　others；　an　individual　in　a　crowd　resembles　primitive　beings。　　Inaccessible　to　fine　distinctions；　he　sees　things　as　a　whole；　and　is　blind　to　their　intermediate　phases。　　The　exaggeration　of　the　sentiments　of　a　crowd　is　heightened　by　the　fact　that　any　feeling　when　once　it　is　exhibited　communicating　itself　very　quickly　by　a　process　of　suggestion　and　contagion；　the　evident　approbation　of　which　it　is　the　object　considerably　increases　its　force。

The　simplicity　and　exaggeration　of　the　sentiments　of　crowds　have　for　result　that　a　throng　knows　neither　doubt　nor　uncertainty。　Like　women；　it　goes　at　once　to　extremes。　　A　suspicion　transforms　itself　as　soon　as　announced　into　incontrovertible　evidence。　　A　commencement　of　antipathy　or　disapprobation；　which　in　the　case　of　an　isolated　individual　would　not　gain　strength；　becomes　at　once　furious　hatred　in　the　case　of　an　individual　in　a　crowd。

The　violence　of　the　feelings　of　crowds　is　also　increased；　especially　in　heterogeneous　crowds；　by　the　absence　of　all　sense　of　responsibility。　　The　certainty　of　impunity；　a　certainty　the　stronger　as　the　crowd　is　more　numerous；　and　the　notion　of　a　considerable　momentary　force　due　to　number；　make　possible　in　the　case　of　crowds　sentiments　and　acts　impossible　for　the　isolated　individual。　　In　crowds　the　foolish；　ignorant；　and　envious　persons　are　freed　from　the　sense　of　their　insignificance　and　powerlessness；　and　are　possessed　instead　by　the　notion　of　brutal　and　temporary　but　immense　strength。

Unfortunately；　this　tendency　of　crowds　towards　exaggeration　is　often　brought　to　bear　upon　bad　sentiments。　　These　sentiments　are　atavistic　residuum　of　the　instincts　of　the　primitive　man；　which　the　fear　of　punishment　obliges　the　isolated　and　responsible　individual　to　curb。　　Thus　it　is　that　crowds　are　so　easily　led　into　the　worst　excesses。

Still　this　does　not　mean　that　crowds；　skilfully　influenced；　are　not　capable　of　heroism　and　devotion　and　of　evincing　the　loftiest　virtues；　they　are　even　more　capable　of　showing　these　qualities　than　the　isolated　individual。　　We　shall　soon　have　occasion　to　revert　to　this　point　when　we　come　to　study　the　morality　of　crowds。

Given　to　exaggeration　in　its　feelings；　a　crowd　is　only　impressed　by　excessive　sentiments。　　An　orator　wishing　to　move　a　crowd　must　make　an　abusive　use　of　violent　affirmations。　　To　exaggerate；　to　affirm；　to　resort　to　repetitions；　and　never　to　attempt　to　prove　anything　by　reasoning　are　methods　of　argument　well　known　to　speakers　at　public　meetings。

Moreover；　a　crowd　exacts　a　like　exaggeration　in　the　sentiments　of　its　heroes。　　Their　apparent　qualities　and　virtues　must　always　be　amplified。　　It　has　been　justly　remarked　that　on　the　stage　a　crowd　demands　from　the　hero　of　the　piece　a　degree　of　courage；　morality；　and　virtue　that　is　never　to　be　found　in　real　life。

Quite　rightly　importance　has　been　laid　on　the　special　standpoint　from　which　matters　are　viewed　in　the　theatre。　　Such　a　standpoint　exists　no　doubt；　but　its　rules　for　the　most　part　have　nothing　to　do　with　common　sense　and　logic。　　The　art　of　appealing　to　crowds　is　no　doubt　of　an　inferior　order；　but　it　demands　quite　special　aptitudes。　　It　is　often　impossible　on　reading　plays　to　explain　their　success。　　Managers　of　theatres　when　accepting　pieces　are　themselves；　as　a　rule；　very　uncertain　of　their　success；　because　to　judge　the　matter　it　would　be　necessary　that　they　should　be　able　to　transform　themselves　into　a　crowd。＇6＇