the psychology of revolution-第26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！



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　successors　are

to　form　an　exact　idea　of　the　events　which　they　have　witnessed；

and　the　men　who　have　surrounded　them。



More　than　a　century　has　elapsed　since　the　Revolution；　and　men　are

only　just　beginning　to　form　judgments　concerning　this　period

which；　if　still　often　doubtful　enough；　are　slightly　more　accurate

than　of　old。



This　happens；　not　only　because　new　documents　are　being　drawn　from

the　archives；　but　because　the　legends　which　enveloped　that

sanguinary　period　in　a　magical　cloud　are　gradually　vanishing　with

the　passage　of　time。



Perhaps　the　most　tenacious　legend　of　all　was　that　which　until

formerly　used　to　surround　the　personages　to　whom　our　fathers

applied　the　glorious　epithet；　‘‘the　Giants　of　the　Convention。''



The　struggles　of　the　Convention　against　France　in　insurrection

and　Europe　in　arms　produced　such　an　impression　that　the　heroes　of

this　formidable　struggle　seemed　to　belong　to　a　race　of　supermen

or　Titans。



The　epithet　‘‘giant''　seemed　justified　so　long　as　the　events　of

the　period　were　confused　and　massed　together。　　Regarded　as

connected　when　it　was　simply　simultaneous；　the　work　of　the　armies

was　confounded　with　that　of　the　Convention。　　The　glory　of　the

first　recoiled　upon　the　second；　and　served　as　an　excuse　for　the

hecatombs　of　the　Terror；　the　ferocity　of　the　civil　war；　and　the

devastation　of　France。



Under　the　penetrating　scrutiny　of　modern　criticism；　the

heterogeneous　mass　of　events　has　been　slowly　disentangled。　　The

armies　of　the　Republic　have　retained　their　old　prestige；　but　we

have　been　forced　to　recognise　that　the　men　of　the　Convention；

absorbed　entirely　by　their　intestine　conflicts；　had　very　little

to　do　with　their　victories。　　At　the　most　two　or　three　members　of

the　committees　of　the　Assembly　were　concerned　with　the　armies；

and　the　fact　that　they　were　victorious　was　due；　apart　from　their

numbers　and　the　talents　of　their　young　generals；　to　the

enthusiasm　with　which　a　new　faith　had　inspired　them。



In　a　later　chapter；　devoted　to　the　revolutionary　armies；　we　shall

see　how　they　conquered　Europe　in　arms。　　They　set　out　inspired　by

the　ideas　of　liberty　and　equality　which　constituted　the　new

gospel；　and　once　on　the　frontiers；　which　were　to　keep　them　so

long；　they　retained　a　special　mentality；　very　different　from　that

of　the　Government；　which　they　first　knew　nothing　of　and

afterwards　despised。



Having　no　part　whatever　in　their　victories；　the　men　of　the

Convention　contented　themselves　with　legislating　at　hazard

according　to　the　injunctions　of　the　leaders　who　directed　them；

and　who　claimed　to　be　regenerating　France　by　means　of　the

guillotine。



But　it　was　thanks　to　these　valiant　armies　that　the　history　of　the

Convention　was　transformed　into　an　apotheosis　which　affected

several　generations　with　a　religious　respect　which　even　to…day　is

hardly　extinct。



Studying　in　detail　the　psychology　of　the　‘‘Giants''　of　the

Convention；　we　find　their　magnitude　shrink　very　rapidly。　　They

were　in　general　extremely　mediocre。　　Their　most　fervent

defenders；　such　as　M。　Aulard；　are　obliged　to　admit　as　much。



This　is　how　M。　Aulard　puts　it　in　his　History　of　the　French

Revolution：



‘‘It　has　been　said　that　the　generation　which　from　1789　to　1799

did　such　great　and　terrible　things　was　a　generation　of　giants；

or；　to　put　it　more　plainly；　that　it　was　a　generation　more

distinguished　than　that　which　preceded　it　or　that　which　followed。



This　is　a　retrospective　illusion。　　The　citizens　who　formed　the

municipal　and　Jacobin　or　nationalist　groups　by　which　the

Revolution　was　effected　do　not　seem　to　have　been　superior；　either

in　enlightenment　or　in　talents；　to　the　Frenchmen　of　the　time　of

Louis　XV。　or　of　Louis　Philippe。　　Were　those　exceptionally　gifted

whose　names　history　has　retained　because　they　appeared　on　the

stage　of　Paris；　or　because　they　were　the　most　brilliant　orators

of　the　various　revolutionary　Assemblies？　　Mirabeau；　up　to　a

certain　point；　deserved　the　title　of　genius；　but　as　to　the　rest

Robespierre；　Danton；　Vergniaudhad　they　truly　more　talent；　for

example；　than　our　modern　orators？　　In　1793；　in　the　time　of　the

supposed　‘giants；'　Mme。　Roland　wrote　in　her　memoirs：　　‘France　was

as　though　drained　of　men；　their　dearth　during　this　revolution　is

truly　surprising；　there　have　scarcely　been　any　but　pigmies。'　''



If　after　considering　the　men　of　the　Convention　individually　we

consider　them　in　a　body；　we　may　say　that　they　did　not　shine

either　by　intelligence　or　by　virtue　or　by　courage。　　Never　did　a

body　of　men　manifest　such　pusillanimity。　　They　had　no　courage

save　in　their　speeches　or　in　respect　of　remote　dangers。　　This

Assembly；　so　proud　and　threatening　in　its　speech　when　addressing

royalty；　was　perhaps　the　most　timid　and　docile　political

collectivity　that　the　world　has　ever　known。　　We　see　it　slavishly

obedient　to　the　orders　of　the　clubs　and　the　Commune；　trembling

before　the　popular　delegations　which　invaded　it　daily；　and

obeying　the　injunctions　of　the　rioters　to　the　point　of　handing

over　to　them　its　most　brilliant　members。　　The　Convention　affords

the　world　a　melancholy　spectacle；　voting；　at　the　popular　behest；

laws　so　absurd　that　it　is　obliged　to　annul　them　as　soon　as　the

rioters　have　quitted　the　hall。



Few　Assemblies　have　given　proof　of　such　weakness。　　When　we　wish

to　show　how　low　a　popular　Government　can　fall　we　have　only　to

point　to　the　Convention。





2。　　Results　of　the　Triumph　of　the　Jacobin　Religion





Among　the　causes　that　gave　the　Convention　its　special

physiognomy；　one　of　the　most　important　was　the　definite

establishment　of　a　revolutionary　religion。　　A　dogma　which　was　at

first　in　process　of　formation　was　at　last　finally　erected。



This　dogma　was　composed　of　an　aggregate　of　somewhat　inconsistent

elements。　　Nature；　the　rights　of　man；　liberty；　equality；　the

social　contract；　hatred　of　tyrants；　and　popular　sovereignty

formed　the　article