the psychology of revolution-第12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！



so；　but　it　does　not　understand　very　much　of　the　ideas　of　its

leaders；　it　interprets　them　in　its　own　fashion；　and　this　fashion

is　by　no　means　that　of　the　true　authors　of　the　revolution。　　The

French　Revolution　furnished　a　striking　example　of　this　fact。



The　Revolution　of　1789　had　as　its　real　object　the　substitution　of

the　power　of　the　nobility　by　that　of　the　bourgeoisie；　that　is；

an　old　elite　which　had　become　incapable　was　to　be　replaced

by　a　new　elite　which　did　possess　capacity。



There　was　little　question　of　the　people　in　this　first　phase　of

the　Revolution。　　The　sovereignty　of　the　people　was　proclaimed；

but　it　amounted　only　to　the　right　of　electing　its

representatives。



Extremely　illiterate；　not　hoping；　like　the　middle　classes；　to

ascend　the　social　scale；　not　in　any　way　feeling　itself　the　equal

of　the　nobles；　and　not　aspiring　ever　to　become　their　equal；　the

people　had　views　and　interests　very　different　to　those　of　the

upper　classes　of　society。



The　struggles　of　the　assembly　with　the　royal　power　led　it　to　call

for　the　intervention　of　the　people　in　these　struggles。　　It

intervened　more　and　more；　and　the　bourgeois　revolution　rapidly

became　a　popular　revolution。



An　idea　having　no　force　of　its　own；　and　acting　only　by　virtue　of

possessing　an　affective　and　mystic　substratum　which　supports　it；

the　theoretical　ideas　of　the　bourgeoisie；　before　they　could　act

on　the　people；　had　to　be　transformed　into　a　new　and　very　definite

faith；　springing　from　obvious　practical　interests。



This　transformation　was　rapidly　effected　when　the　people　heard

the　men　envisaged　by　it　as　the　Government　assuring　it　that　it　was

the　equal　of　its　former　masters。　　It　began　to　regard　itself　as　a

victim；　and　proceeded　to　pillage；　burn；　and　massacre；　imagining

that　in　so　doing　it　was　exercising　a　right。



The　great　strength　of　the　revolutionary　principles　was　that　they

gave　a　free　course　to　the　instincts　of　primitive　barbarity　which

had　been　restrained　by　the　secular　and　inhibitory　action　of

environment；　tradition；　and　law。



All　the　social　bonds　that　formerly　contained　the　multitude　were

day　by　day　dissolving；　so　that　it　conceived　a　notion　of　unlimited

power；　and　the　joy　of　seeing　its　ancient　masters　ferreted　out　and

despoiled。　　Having　become　the　sovereign　people；　were　not　all

things　permissible　to　it？



The　motto　of　Liberty；　Equality；　Fraternity；　a　true　manifestation

of　hope　and　faith　at　the　beginning　of　the　Revolution；　soon　merely

served　to　cover　a　legal　justification　of　the　sentiments　of

jealousy；　cupidity；　and　hatred　of　superiors；　the　true　motives　of

crowds　unrestrained　by　discipline。　　This　is　why　the　Revolution　so

soon　ended　in　disorder；　violence；　and　anarchy。



From　the　moment　when　the　Revolution　descended　from　the　middle　to

the　lower　classes　of　society；　it　ceased　to　be　a　domination　of　the

instinctive　by　the　rational；　and　became；　on　the　contrary；

the　effort　of　the　instinctive　to　overpower　the　rational。



This　legal　triumph　of　the　atavistic　instincts　was　terrible。　　The

whole　effort　of　societies　an　effort　indispensable　to　their

continued　existencehad　always　been　to　restrain；　thanks　to　the

power　of　tradition；　customs；　and　codes；　certain　natural　instincts

which　man　has　inherited　from　his　primitive　animality。　　It　is

possible　to　dominate　themand　the　more　a　people　does　overcome

them　the　more　civilised　it　isbut　they　cannot　be　destroyed。　　The

influence　of　various　exciting　causes　will　readily　result　in　their

reappearance。



This　is　why　the　liberation　of　popular　passions　is　so　dangerous。　

The　torrent；　once　escaped　from　its　bed；　does　not　return　until　it

has　spread　devastation　far　and　wide。　　‘‘Woe　to　him　who　stirs　up

the　dregs　of　a　nation；''　said　Rivarol　at　the　beginning　of　the

Revolution。　　‘‘There　is　no　age　of　enlightenment　for　the

populace。''





3。　The　supposed　Part　of　the　People　during　Revolution。





The　laws　of　the　psychology　of　crowds　show　us　that　the　people

never　acts　without　leaders；　and　that　although　it　plays　a

considerable　part　in　revolutions　by　following　and　exaggerating

the　impulses　received；　it　never　directs　its　own　movements。



In　all　political　revolutions　we　discover　the　action　of　leaders。　

They　do　not　create　the　ideas　which　serve　as　the　basis　of

revolutions；　but　they　utilise　them　as　a　means　of　action。　　Ideas；

leaders；　armies；　and　crowds　constitute　four　elements　which　all

have　their　part　to　play　in　revolutions。



The　crowd；　roused　by　the　leaders；　acts　especially　by　means　of　its

mass。　　Its　action　is　comparable　to　that　of　the　shell　which

perforates　an　armour…plate　by　the　momentum　of　a　force　it　did　not

create。　　Rarely　does　the　crowd　understand　anything　of　the

revolutions　accomplished　with　its　assistance。　　It　obediently

follows　its　leaders　without　even　trying　to　find　out　what　they

want。　　It　overthrew　Charles　X。　because　of　his　Ordinances　without

having　any　idea　of　the　contents　of　the　latter；　and　would　have

been　greatly　embarrassed　had　it　been　asked　at　a　later　date　why　it

overthrew　Louis…Philippe。



Deceived　by　appearances；　many　authors；　from　Michelet　to　Aulard；

have　supposed　that　the　people　effected　our　great　Revolution。



‘‘The　principal　actor；''　said　Michelet；　‘‘is　the　people。''



‘‘It　is　an　error　to　say；''　writes　M。　Aulard；　‘‘that　the　French

Revolution　was　effected　by　a　few　distinguished　people　or　a　few

heroes。　。　。　。　　I　believe　that　in　the　whole　history　of　the　period

included　between　1789　and　1799　not　a　single　person　stands　out　who

led　or　shaped　events：　neither　Louis　XVI。　nor　Mirabeau　nor　Danton

nor　Robespierre。　　Must　we　say　that　it　was　the　French　people　that

was　the　real　hero　of　the　French　Revolution？　　Yesprovided　we　see

the　French　people　not　as　a　multitude　but　as　a　number　of　organised

groups。''



And　in　a　recent　work　M。　A。　Cochin　insists　on　this　conception　of

popular　action。



‘‘And　here　is　the　wonder：　　Michelet　is　right。　　In　proportion　as

we　know　them　better　the　facts　seem　to　consecrate　the　fiction：

this　crowd；　without　chiefs　and　without　laws；　the　very　image　of

chaos；　did　for　five　years　govern　and　command；　speak　and　act；　with

a　precision；　a　consistency；　and　an　entirety　that　were

marvellous。　　Anarchy　gave　lessons　in　order　and　discipline　to　the

defeated　party　of　order　。　。　。　twenty…five　millions　of　men；　spread

over　an　area　of　30；000　square　leagues；　acted　as　one。''



Certainly　if　this　simultaneous　conduct　of　the　people　had　been

spontaneous；　as　the　author　supposes；　it　would　have　been

marvellous。　　M。　Aulard　himself　understands　very　well　the

impossibilities　of　such　a　phenomenon；　for　he　is　careful；　in

speaking　of　the　people；　to　say　that　he　is　speaking　of　groups；　and

that　these　groups　may　have　been　guided　by　leaders：



‘‘And　what；　then；　cemented　the　national　unity？　　Who　saved　this

nation；　attacked　by　the　king　and　rent　by　civil　war？　　Was　it

Danton？　　Was　it　Robespierre？　　Was　it　Carnot？　　Certainly　these

individual　men　were　of　service：　but　unity　was　in　fact　maintained

and　independence　assured　by　the　grouping　of　the　French　into

communes　and　popular　societiespeople's　clubs。　　It　was　the

municipal　and　Jacobin　organisation　of　France　that　forced　the

coalition　of　Europe　to　retreat。　　But　in　each　group；　if　we　look

more　closely；　there　were　two　or　three　individuals　more　capable

than　the　rest；　who；　whether　leaders　or　led；　executed　decisions

and　had　the　appearance　of　leaders；　but　who　（if；　for　instance；　we

read　the　proceedings　of　the　people's　clubs）　seem　to　us　to　have

drawn　their　strength　far　more　from　their　group　than　from

themselves。



M。　Aulard's　mistake　consists　in　supposing　that　all　these　groups

were　derived　‘‘from　a　spontaneous　movement　of　fraternity　and

reason。''　　France　at　that　time　was　covered　with　thousands　of

little　clubs；　receiving　a　single　impulsion　from　the　great

Jacobin　Club　of　Paris；　and　obeying　it　with　perfect　docility。　

This　is　what　reality　teaches　us；　though　the　illusions　of　the

Jacobins　do　not　permit　them　to　accept　the　fact。