the psychology of revolution-第35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！



above　all　Danton；　sent　to　the　Tuileries　on　the　20th　of　June　a

petition　threatening　the　king　with　revocation。　　It　then　invaded

the　Tuileries；　heaping　invectives　on　the　sovereign。



Fatality　impelled　Louis　toward　his　tragic　destiny。　　While　the

threats　of　the　Jacobins　against　royalty　had　roused　many　of　the

departments　to　indignation；　it　was　learned　that　a　Prussian　army

had　arrived　on　the　frontiers　of　Lorraine。



The　hope　of　the　king　and　queen　respecting　the　help　to　be　obtained

from　abroad　was　highly　chimerical。　　Marie…Antoinette

suffered　from　an　absolute　illusion　as　to　the　psychology　of　the

Austrian　and　the　French　peoples。　　Seeing　France　terrorised　by　a

few　energumens；　she　supposed　that　it　would　be　equally　easy　to

terrify　the　Parisians；　and　by　means　of　threats　to　lead　them　back

under　the　king's　authority。　　Inspired　by　her；　Fersen　undertook　to

publish　the　manifesto　of　the　Duke　of　Brunswick；　threatening　Paris

with　‘‘total　subversion　if　the　royal　family　were　molested。''



The　effect　produced　was　diametrically　opposite　to　that　intended。　

The　manifesto　aroused　indignation　against　the　monarch；　who　was

regarded　as　an　accomplice；　and　increased　his　unpopularity。　　From

that　day　he　was　marked　for　the　scaffold。



Carried　away　by　Danton；　the　delegates　of　the　sections　installed

themselves　at　the　Hotel　de　Ville　as　an　insurrectionary

Commune；　which　arrested　the　commandant　of　the　National　Guard；　who

was　devoted　to　the　king；　sounded　the　tocsin；　equipped　the

National　Guard；　and　on　the　10th　of　August　hurled　them；　with　the

populace；　against　the　Tuileries。　　The　regiments　called　in　by

Louis　disbanded　themselves。　　Soon　none　were　left　to　defend　him

but　his　Swiss　and　a　few　gentlemen。　　Nearly　all　were　killed。　　Left

alone；　the　king　took　refuge　with　the　Assembly。　　The　crowds

demanded　his　denouncement。　　The　Legislative　Assembly　decreed　his

suspension　and　left　a　future　Assembly；　the　Convention；　to　decide

upon　his　fate。





2。　　Mental　Characteristics　of　the　Legislative　Assembly。





The　Legislative　Assembly；　formed　of　new　men；　presented　quite　a

special　interest　from　the　psychological　point　of　view。　

Few　assemblies　have　offered　in　such　a　degree　the　characteristics

of　the　political　collectivity。



It　comprised　seven　hundred　and　fifty　deputies；　divided　into　pure

royalists；　constitutional　royalists；　republicans；　Girondists；　and

Montagnards。　　Advocates　and　men　of　letters　formed　the　majority。　

It　also　contained；　but　in　smaller　numbers；　superior　officers；

priests；　and　a　very　few　scientists。



The　philosophical　conceptions　of　the　members　of　this　Assembly

seem　rudimentary　enough。　　Many　were　imbued　with　Rousseau's　idea

of　a　return　to　a　state　of　nature。　　But　all；　like　their

predecessors；　were　dominated　more　especially　by　recollections　of

Greek　and　Latin　antiquity。　　Cato；　Brutus；　Gracchus；　Plutarch；

Marcus　Aurelius；　and　Plato；　continually　evoked；　furnished　the

images　of　their　speech。　　When　the　orator　wished　to　insult　Louis

XVI。　he　called　him　Caligula。



In　hoping　to　destroy　tradition　they　were　revolutionaries；　but　in

claiming　to　return　to　a　remote　past　they　showed　themselves

extremely　reactionary。



For　the　rest；　all　these　theories　had　very　little　influence　on

their　conduct。　　Reason　was　continually　figuring　in　their

speeches；　but　never　in　their　actions。　　These　were　always

dominated　by　those　affective　and　mystic　elements　whose　potency　we

have　so　often　demonstrated。



The　psychological　characteristics　of　the　Legislative　Assembly

were　those　of　the　Constituent　Assembly；　but　were　greatly

accentuated。　　They　may　be　summed　up　in　four　words：

impressionability；　mobility；　timidity；　and　weakness。



This　mobility　and　impressionability　are　revealed　in　the　constant

variability　of　their　conduct。　　One　day　they　exchange　noisy

invective　and　blows。　　On　the　following　day　we　see　them　‘‘throwing

themselves　into　one　another's　arms　with　torrents　of　tears。''　

They　eagerly　applaud　an　address　demanding　the　punishment　of　those

who　have　petitioned　for　the　king's　dethronement；　and　the　same　day

accord　the　honours　of　the　session　to　a　delegation　which　has　come

to　demand　his　downfall。



The　pusillanimity　and　weakness　of　the　Assembly　in　the　face　of

threats　was　extreme。　　Although　royalist　it　voted　the　suspension

of　the　king；　and　on　the　demand　of　the　Commune　delivered　him；　with

his　family；　to　be　imprisoned　in　the　Temple；



Thanks　to　its　weakness；　it　was　as　incapable　as　the　Constituent

Assembly　of　exercising　any　power；　and　allowed　itself　to　be

dominated　by　the　Commune　and　the　clubs；　which　were　directed　by

such　influential　leaders　as　Hebert；　Tallien；　Rossignol；　Marat；

Robespierre；　&c。



Until　Thermidor；　1794；　the　insurrectionary　Commune　constituted

the　chief　power　in　the　State；　and　behaved　precisely　as　if　it　had

been　charged　with　the　government　of　Paris。



It　was　the　Commune　that　demanded　the　imprisonment　of　Louis　XVI。　

in　the　tower　of　the　Temple；　when　the　Assembly　wished　to　imprison

him　in　the　palace　of　the　Luxembourg。　　It　was　the　Commune　again

that　filled　the　prisons　with　suspects；　and　then　ordered　them　to

be　killed。



We　know　with　what　refinements　of　cruelty　a　handful　of　some　150

bandits；　paid　at　the　rate　of　24　livres　a　day；　and　directed　by　a

few　members　of　the　Commune；　exterminated　some　1；200　persons　in

four　days。　　This　crime　was　known　as　the　massacre　of　September。　

The　mayor　of　Paris；　Petion；　received　the　band　of　assassins　with

respect；　and　gave　them　drink。　　A　few　Girondists　protested

somewhat；　but　the　Jacobins　were　silent。



The　terrorised　Assembly　affected　at　first　to　ignore　the

massacres；　which　were　encouraged　by　several　of　its　more

influential　deputies；　notably　Couthon　and　Billaud…Varenne。　　When

at　last　it　decided　to　condemn　them　it　was　without　attempting　to

prevent　their　continuation。



Conscious　of　its　impotence；　the　Legislative　Assembly　dissolved

itself　a　fortnight　later　in　order　to　give　way　to　the　Convention。



Its　work　was　obviously　disastrous；　not　in　intention　but　in　fact。　

Royalist；　it　abandoned　the　monarchy；　humanitarian；　it　allowed　the

massacres　of　September；　pacific；　it　pushed　France　into　a

formidable　war；　thus　showing　that　a　weak　Government　always　ends

by　bringing　ruin　upon　its　country。



The　history　of　the　two　previous　revolutionary　Assemblies　proves

once　more　to　what　point　events　carry　within　them　their　inevitable

consequences。　　They　constitute　a　train　of　necessities　of　which　we

can　sometimes　choose　the　first；　but　which　then　evolve　without

consulting　us。　　We　are　free　to　make　a　decision；　but　powerless　to

avert　its　consequences。



The　first　measures　of　the　Constituent　Assembly　were　rational　and

voluntary；　but　the　results　which　followed　were　beyond　all　will　or

reason　or　foresight。



Which　of　the　men　of　1789　would　have　ventured　to　desire　or　predict

the　death　of　Louis　XVI。；　the　wars　of　La　Vendee；　the　Terror；　the

permanent　guillotine　and　the　final　anarchy；　or　the　ensuing　return

to　tradition　and　order；　guided　by　the　iron　hand　of　a　soldier？



In　the　development　of　events　which　ensued　from　the　early　actions

of　the　revolutionary　Assemblies　the　most　striking；　perhaps；　was

the　rise　and　development　of　the　government　of　the　crowdof　mob

rule。



Behind　the　facts　which　we　have　been　consideringthe　taking　of

the　Bastille；　the　invasion　of　Versailles；　the　massacres　of

September；　the　attack　on　the　Tuileries；　the　murder　of　the　Swiss

Guards；　and　the　downfall　and　imprisonment　of　the　kingwe　can

readily　perceive　the　laws　affecting　the　psychology　of　crowds　and

their　leaders。



We　shall　now　see　that　the　power　of　the　multitude　will

progressively　increase；　overcome　all　other　powers；　and　finally

replace　them。







CHAPTER　III



THE　PSYCHOLOGY　OF　THE　CONVENTION



1。　　The　Legend　of　the　Convention。



The　history　of　the　Convention　is　not　merely　fertile　in

psychological　documents。　　It　also　shows　how　powerless　the

witnesses　of　any　period　and　even　their　immediate