the psychology of revolution-第24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！



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　scientific　phenomena　into　which　the　opinions　and　beliefs　of

a　writer　enter　so　little　that　the　reader　does　not　even　suspect

them。



This　period　has　not　yet　come　into　being；　we　are　still　in　the

period　of　doubt。　　The　liberal　writers　who　used　to　be　so　positive

are　now　so　no　longer。　　One　may　judge　of　this　new　state　of

mind　by　the　following　extracts　from　recent　authors：



M。　Hanotaux；　having　vaunted　the　utility　of　the　Revolution；　asks

whether　its　results　were　not　bought　too　dearly；　and　adds：



‘‘History　hesitates；　and　will；　for　a　long　time　yet；　hesitate　to

answer。''



M。　Madelin　is　equally　dubious　in　the　book　he　has　recently

published：



‘‘I　have　never　felt　sufficient　authority　to　form；　even　in　my

inmost　conscience；　a　categorical　judgment　on　so　complex　a

phenomenon　as　the　French　Revolution。　　To…day　I　find　it　even　more

difficult　to　form　a　brief　judgement。　　Causes；　facts；　and

consequences　seem　to　me　to　be　still　extremely　debatable

subjects。''



One　may　obtain　a　still　better　idea　of　the　transformation　of　the

old　ideas　concerning　the　Revolution　by　perusing　the　latest

writings　of　its　official　defenders。　　While　they　professed

formerly　to　justify　every　act　of　violence　by　representing　it　as　a

simple　act　of　defence；　they　now　confine　themselves　to　pleading

extenuating　circumstances。　　I　find　a　striking　proof　of　this　new

frame　of　mind　in　the　history　of　France　for　the　use　of　schools；

published　by　MM。　Aulard　and　Debidour。　　Concerning　the　Terror　we

read　the　following　lines：



‘‘Blood　flowed　in　waves；　there　were　acts　of　injustice　and　crimes

which　were　useless　from　the　point　of　view　of　national　defence；

and　odious。　　But　men　had　lost　their　heads　in　the　tempest；　and；

harassed　by　a　thousand　dangers；　the　patriots　struck　out　in　their

rage。''



We　shall　see　in　another　part　of　this　work　that　the　first　of　the

two　authors　whom　I　have　cited　is；　in　spite　of　his

uncompromising　Jacobinism；　by　no　means　indulgent　toward　the　men

formerly　qualified　as　the　‘‘Giants　of　the　Convention。''



The　judgments　of　foreigners　upon　our　Revolution　are　usually

distinctly　severe；　and　we　cannot　be　surprised　when　we　remember

how　Europe　suffered　during　the　twenty　years　of　upheaval　in

France。



The　Germans　in　particular　have　been　most　severe。　　Their　opinion

is　summed　up　in　the　following　lines　by　M。　Faguet：



‘‘Let　us　say　it　courageously　and　patriotically；　for　patriotism

consists　above　all　in　telling　the　truth　to　one's　own　country：　

Germany　sees　in　France；　with　regard　to　the　past；　a　people　who；

with　the　great　words　‘liberty'　and　‘fraternity'　in　its　mouth；

oppressed；　trampled；　murdered；　pillaged；　and　fleeced　her　for

fifteen　years；　and　with　regard　to　the　present；　a　people　who；　with

the　same　words　on　its　banners；　is　organising　a　despotic；

oppressive；　mischievous；　and　ruinous　democracy；　which　none　would

seek　to　imitate。　　This　is　what　Germany　may　well　see　in　France；

and　this；　according　to　her　books　and　journals；　is；　we　may　assure

ourselves；　what　she　does　see。''



For　the　rest；　whatever　the　worth　of　the　verdicts　pronounced　upon

the　French　Revolution；　we　may　be　certain　that　the　writers　of　the

future　will　consider　it　as　an　event　as　passionately　interesting

as　it　is　instructive。



A　Government　bloodthirsty　enough　to　guillotine　old　men　of　eighty

years；　young　girls；　and　little　children：　which　covered　France

with　ruins；　and　yet　succeeded　in　repulsing　Europe　in　arms；　an

archduchess　of　Austria；　Queen　of　France；　dying　on　the

scaffold；　and　a　few　years　later　another　archduchess；　her

relative；　replacing　her　on　the　same　throne　and　marrying　a　sub…

lieutenant；　turned　Emperorhere　are　tragedies　unique　in　human

history。　　The　psychologists；　above　all；　will　derive　lessons　from

a　history　hitherto　so　little　studied　by　them。　　No　doubt　they　will

finally　discover　that　psychology　can　make　no　progress　until　it

renounces　chimerical　theories　and　laboratory　experiments　in　order

to　study　the　events　and　the　men　who　surround　us。＇7＇







＇7＇　This　advice　is　far　from　being　banal。　　The　psychologists　of

the　day　pay　very　little　attention　to　the　world　about　them；　and

are　even　surprised　that　any　one　should　study　it。　　I　have　come

across　an　interesting　proof　of　this　indifferent　frame　of　mind　in

a　review　of　one　of　my　books　which　appeared　in　the　Revue

philosophique　and　was　inspired　by　the　editor　of　the　review。　　The

author　reproaches　me　with　‘‘exploring　the　world　and　the

newspapers　rather　than　books。''



I　most　gladly　accept　this　reproach。　　The　manifold　facts　of　the

journals　and　the　realities　of　the　world　are　far　more　instructive

than　philosophical　lucubrations　such　as　the　Revue　is　stuffed

with。



Philosophers　are　beginning　to　see　the　puerility　of　such

reproaches。　　It　was　certainly　of　the　forty　volumes　of　this

fastidious　publication　that　Mr。　William　James　was　thinking　when

he　wrote　that　all　these　dissertations　simply　represented　‘‘a

string　of　facts　clumsily　observed　and　a