the psychology of revolution- 第10部分

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。＇3＇







＇3＇　In　the　historical　manuals　which　M。　Aulard　has　prepared　for

the　use　of　classes　in　collaboration　with　M。　Debidour　the

role　attributed　to　the　people　as　an　entity　is　even　more

marked。　　We　see　it　intervening　continually　and　spontaneously；

here　are　a　few　examples：



The　‘‘Day''　of　June　the　20th：　　‘‘The　king　dismissed　the

Girondist　members。　　The　people　of　Paris；　indignant；　rose

spontaneously　and　invaded　the　Tuileries。''



The　‘‘Day''　of　August　10th：　　‘‘The　Legislative　Assembly　dared

not　overthrow　it；　it　was　the　people　of　Paris；　aided　by　the

Federals　of　the　Departments；　who　effected　this　revolution　at　the

price　of　its　blood。''



The　conflict　of　the　Girondists　and　the　Mountain：　　‘‘This

discord　in　the　face　of　the　enemy　was　dangerous。　　The　people　put

an　end　to　it　on　the　days　of　the　31st　of　May　and　the　2nd　of　June；

1793；　when　it　forced　the　Convention　to　expel　the　leaders　of　the

Gironde　from　its　midst　and　to　decree　their　arrest。''







4。　　The　Popular　Entity　and　its　Constituent　Elements。





In　order　to　answer　to　certain　theoretical　conceptions　the　people

was　erected　into　a　mystic　entity；　endowed　with　all　the　powers　and

all　the　virtues；　incessantly　praised　by　the　politicians；　and

overwhelmed　with　flattery。　　We　shall　see　what　we　are　to　make　of

this　conception　of　the　part　played　by　the　people　in　the　French

Revolution。



To　the　Jacobins　of　this　epoch；　as　to　those　of　our　own　days；　this

popular　entity　constitutes　a　superior　personality　possessing　the

attributes；　peculiar　to　divinities；　of　never　having　to　answer　for

its　actions　and　never　making　a　mistake。　　Its　wishes　must　be

humbly　acceded。　　The　people　may　kill；　burn；　ravage；　commit　the

most　frightful　cruelties；　glorify　its　hero　to…day　and　throw　him

into　the　gutter　to…morrow；　it　is　all　one；　the　politicians　will

not　cease　to　vaunt　its　virtues；　its　high　wisdom；　and　to　bow　to

its　every　decision。＇4＇







＇4＇　These　pretensions　do　at　least　seem　to　be　growing　untenable　to

the　more　advanced　republicans。



‘‘The　rage　with　the　socialists''　writes　M。　Clemenceau；　‘‘is　to

endow　with　all　the　virtues；　as　though　by　a　superhuman　reason；　the

crowd　whose　reason　cannot　be　much　to　boast　of。''　　The　famous

statesman　might　say　more　correctly　that　reason　not　only　cannot　be

prominent　in　the　crowd　but　is　practically　nonexistent。









Now　in　what　does　this　entity　really　consist；　this　mysterious

fetich　which　revolutionists　have　revered　for　more　than　a　century？



It　may　be　decomposed　into　two　distinct　categories。　　The　first

includes　the　peasants；　traders；　and　workers　of　all　sorts　who　need

tranquillity　and　order　that　they　may　exercise　their　calling。　

This　people　forms　the　majority；　but　a　majority　which　never　caused

a　revolution。　　Living　in　laborious　silence；　it　is　ignored　by　the

historians。



The　second　category；　which　plays　a　capital　part　in　all　national

disturbances；　consists　of　a　subversive　social　residue　dominated

by　a　criminal　mentality。　　Degenerates　of　alcoholism　and　poverty；

thieves；　beggars；　destitute　‘‘casuals；''　indifferent　workers

without　employmentthese　constitute　the　dangerous　bulk　of　the

armies　of　insurrection。



The　fear　of　punishment　prevents　many　of　them　from　becoming

criminals　at　ordinary　times；　but　they　do　become　criminals　as　soon

as　they　can　exercise　their　evil　instincts　without　danger。



To　this　sinister　substratum　are　due　the　massacres　which　stain　all

revolutions。



It　was　this　class　which；　guided　by　its　leaders；　continually

invaded　the　great　revolutionary　Assemblies。　　These　regiments　of

disorder　had　no　other　ideal　than　that　of　massacre；　pillage；　and

incendiarism。　　Their　indifference　to　theories　and　principles　was

complete。



To　the　elements　recruited　from　the　lowest　dregs　of　the　populace

are　added；　by　way　of　contagion；　a　host　of　idle　and　indifferent

persons　who　are　simply　drawn　into　the　movement。　　They　shout

because　ther