the psychology of revolution- 第19部分

when　abandoned　to　its　instincts　and　liberated　from　all　social

restraint　it　relapses　into　primitive　savagery。　　The　conception　of

M。　Aulard；　entirely　contrary　to　the　lessons　of　the　psychology　of

crowds；　is　none　the　less　a　religious　dogma　in　the　eyes　of　modern

Jacobins。　　They　write　of　the　Revolution　according　to　the　methods

of　believers；　and　take　for　learned　works　the　arguments　of　virtual

theologians。



2。　　The　Theory　of　Fatalism　in　respect　of　the　Revolution。





Advocates　and　detractors　of　the　Revolution　often　admit　the

fatality　of　revolutionary　events。　　This　theory　is　well

synthetised　in　the　following　passage　from　the　History　of　the

Revolution；　by　Emile　Olivier：



‘‘No　man　could　oppose　it。　　The　blame　belongs　neither　to　those　who

perished　nor　to　those　who　survived；　there　was　no　individual　force

capable　of　changing　the　elements　and　of　foreseeing　the　events

which　were　born　of　the　nature　of　things　and　circumstances。''



Taine　himself　inclines　to　this　idea：



‘‘At　the　moment　when　the　States　General　were　opened　the　course　of

ideas　and　events　was　not　only　determined　but　even　visible。　　Each

generation　unwittingly　bears　within　itself　its　future　and　its

past；　from　the　latter　its　destinies　might　have　been　foretold　long

before　the　issue。''



Other　modern　authors；　who　profess　no　more　indulgence　for　the

violence　of　the　revolutionaries　than　did　Taine；　are　equally

convinced　of　this　fatality。　　M。　Sorel；　after　recalling　the　saying

of　Bossuet　concerning　the　revolutions　of　antiquity：　　‘‘Everything

is　surprising　if　we　only　consider　particular　causes；　and　yet

everything　goes　forward　in　regular　sequence；''　expresses　an

intention　which　he　very　imperfectly　realises：　‘‘to　show　in　the

Revolution；　which　seems　to　some　the　subversion　and　to　others　the

regeneration　of　the　old　European　world；　the　natural　and　necessary

result　of　the　history　of　Europe；　and　to　show；　moreover；　that　this

revolution　had　no　resultnot　even　the　most　unexpectedthat　did

not　ensue　from　this　history；　and　was　not　explained　by　the

precedents　of　the　ancien　regime。''



Guizot　also　had　formerly　attempted　to　prove　that　our　Revolution；

which　he　quite　wrongly　compared　to　that　of　England；　was　perfectly

natural　and　effected　no　innovations：



‘‘Far　from　having　broken　with　the　natural　course　of　events　in

Europe；　neither　the　English　revolution　nor　our　own　did；　intended；

or　said　anything　that　had　not　been　said；　intended；　and　done　a

hundred　years　before　its　outbreak。



‘‘　。　。　。　Whether　we　regard　the　general　doctrines　of　the　two

revolutions　or　the　application　made　of　themwhether　we　deal　with

the　government　of　the　State　or　with　the　civil　legislation；　with

property　or　with　persons；　with　liberty　or　with　power；　we　shall

find　nothing　of　which　the　invention　can　be　attributed　to　them；

nothing　that　will　not　be　encountered　elsewhere；　or　that　was　not

at　least　originated　in　times　which　we　qualify　as　normal。''



All　these　assertions　merely　recall　the　banal　law　that　a

phenomenon　is　simply　the　consequence　of　previous　phenomena。　　Such

very　general　propositions　do　not　teach　us　much。



We　must　not　try　to　explain　too　many　events　by　the　principle　of

fatality　adopted　by　so　many　historians。　　I　have　elsewhere

discussed　the　significance　of　such　fatalities；　and　have　shown

that　the　whole　effort　of　civilisation　consists　in　trying　to

escape　therefrom。　　Certainly　history　is　full　of　necessities；　but

it　is　also　full　of　contingent　facts　which　were；　and　might　not

have　been。　　Napoleon　himself；　on　St。　Helena；　enumerated　six

circumstances　which　might　have　checked　his　prodigious　career。　　He

related；　notably；　that　on　taking　a　bath　at　Auxonne；　in　1786；　he

only　escaped　death　by　the　fortuitous　presence　of　a　sandbank。　　If

Bonaparte　had　died；　then　we　may　admit　that　another　general　would

have　arisen；　and　might　have　become　dictator。　　But　what　would　have

become　of　the　Imperial　epic　and　its　consequences　without

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