the psychology of revolution- 第20部分

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　few　quarrelsome

discussions。''　　Although　he　is　the　author　of　the　best　known

treatise　on　psychology　extant；　the　eminent　thinker　realises　‘‘the

fragility　of　a　science　that　oozes　metaphysical　criticism　at　every

joint。''　　For　more　than　twenty　years　I　have　tried　to　interest

psychologists　in　the　study　of　realities；　but　the　stream　of

university　metaphysics　is　hardly　yet　turned　aside；　although　it

has　lost　its　former　force







4。　　Impartiality　in　History。





Impartiality　has　always　been　considered　as　the　most　essential

quality　of　the　historian。　　All　historians　since　Tacitus　have

assured　us　that　they　are　impartial。



In　reality　the　writer　sees　events　as　the　painter　sees　a

landscapethat　is；　through　his　own　temperament；　through　his

character　and　the　mind　of　the　race。



A　number　of　artists；　placed　before　the　same　landscape；　would

necessarily　interpret　it　in　as　many　different　fashions。　　Some

would　lay　stress　upon　details　neglected　by　others。　　Each

reproduction　would　thus　be　a　personal　workthat　is　to　say；　would

be　interpreted　by　a　certain　form　of　sensibility。



It　is　the　same　with　the　writer。　　We　can　no　more　speak　of　the

impartiality　of　the　historian　than　we　can　speak　of　the

impartiality　of　the　painter。



Certainly　the　historian　may　confine　himself　to　the　reproduction

of　documents；　and　this　is　the　present　tendency。　　But　these

documents；　for　periods　as　near　us　as　the　Revolution；　are　so

abundant　that　a　man's　whole　life　would　not　suffice　to　go　through

them。　　Therefore　the　historian　must　make　a　choice。



Consciously　sometimes；　but　more　often　unconsciously；　the　author

will　select　the　material　which　best　corresponds　with　his

political；　moral；　and　social　opinions。



It　is　therefore　impossible；　unless　he　contents　himself　with

simple　chronologies　summing　up　each　event　with　a　few　words　and　a

date；　to　produce　a　truly　impartial　volume　of　history。　　No　author

could　be　impartial；　and　it　is　not　to　be　regretted。　　The　claim　to

impartiality；　so　common　to…day；　results　in　those　flat；　gloomy；

and　prodigiously　wearisome　works　which　render　the　comprehension

of　a　period　completely　impossible。



Should　the　historian；　under　a　pretext　of　impartiality；　abstain

from　judging　menthat　is；　from　speaking　in　tones　of　admiration

or　reprobation？



This　question；　I　admit；　allows　of　two　very　different　solutions；

each　of　which　is　perfectly　correct；　according　to　the　point　of

view　assumedthat　of　the　moralist　or　that　of　the　psychologist。



The　moralist　must　think　exclusively　of　the　interest　of　society；

and　must　judge　men　only　according　to　that　interest。　　By　the　very

fact　that　it　exists　and　wishes　to　continue　to　exist　a　society　is

obliged　to　admit　a　certain　number　of　rules；　to　have　an

indestructible　standard　of　good　and　evil；　and　consequently　to

create　very　definite　distinctions　between　vice　and　virtue。　　It

thus　finally　creates　average　types；　to　which　the　man　of　the

period　approaches　more　or　less　closely；　and　from　which　he　cannot

depart　very　widely　without　peril　to　society。



It　is　by　such　similar　types　and　the　rules　derived　from　social

necessities　that　the　moralist　must　judge　the　men　of　the　past。　

Praising　those　which　were　useful　and　blaming　the　rest；　he　thus

helps　to　form　the　moral　types　which　are　indispensable　to　the

progress　of　civilisation　and　which　may　serve　others　as　models。　

Poets　such　as　Corneille；　for　example；　create　heroes　superior　to

the　majority　of　men；　and　possibly　inimitable；　but　they　thereby

help　greatly　to　stimulate　our　efforts。　　The　example　of　heroes

must　always　be　set　before　a　people　in　order　to　ennoble　its　mind。



Such　is　the　moralist's　point　of　view。　　That　of　the　psychologist

would　be　quite　different。　　While　a　society　has　no　right　to　be

tolerant；　because　its　first　duty　is　to　live；　the　psychologist　may

remain　indifferent。　　Considering　things　as　a　scientist；　he　no

longer　asks　their　utilitarian　value；　but　seeks　merely　to　explain

them。



His　situation　is　that　of　the　observer　before　any　phenomenon。　　It

is　obviously　difficult　to　read　in　cold　blood　that　Carrier　ordered

his　victims　to　be　buried　up　to　the　neck　so　that　they　might　then

be　blinded　and　subjected　to　horrible　torments。　　Yet　if　we　wish　to

comprehend　such　acts　we　must　be　no　more　indignant　than　the

naturalist　before　the　spider　slowly　devouring　a　fly。　　As　soon　as

the　reason　is　moved　it　is　no　longer　reason；　and　can　explain

nothing。



The　functions　of　the　historian　and　the　psychologist　are　not；　as

we　see；　identical；　but　of　both　we　may　demand　the　endeavour；　by　a

wise　interpretation　of　the　facts；　to　discover；　under　the　visible

evidences；　the　invisible　forces　which　determine　them。







CHAPTER　II



THE　PSYCHOLOGICAL　FOUNDATIONS　OF　THE　ANCIEN　REGIME



1。　　The　Absolute　Monarchy　and　the　Bases　of　the　Ancien　Regime。



Many　historians　assure　us　that　the　Revolution　was　directed

against　the　autocracy　of　the　monarchy。　　In　reality　the　kings　of

France　had　ceased　to　be　absolute　monarchs　long　before　its

outbreak。



Only　very　late　in　historynot　until　the　reign　of　Louis　XIV。did

they　finally　obtain　incontestable　power。　　All　the　preceding

sovereigns；　even　the　most　powerful；　such　as　Francis　I。；　for

example；　had　to　sustain　a　constant　struggle　either　against　the

seigneurs；　or　the　clergy；　or　the　parliaments；　and　they　did　not

always　win。　　Francis　himself　had　not　sufficient　power　to　protect

his　most　intimate　friends　against　the　Sorbonne　and　the

Parliament。　　His　friend　and　councillor　Berquin；　having　offended

the　Sorbonne；　was　arrested　upon　the　order　of　the　latter　body。　

The　king　ordered　his　release；　which　was　refused。　　He　was　obliged

to　send　archers　to　remove　him　from　the　Conciergerie；　and　could

find　no　other　means　of　protecting　him　than　that　of　keeping　him

beside　him　in　the　Louvre。　　The　Sorbonne　by　no　means　considered

itself　beaten。　　Profiting　by　the　king's　absence；　it

arrested　Berquin　again　and　had　him　tried　by　Parliament。　

Condemned　at　ten　in　the　morning；　he　was　burned　alive　at　noon。



Built　up　very　gradually；　the　power　of　the　kings　of　France　was　not

absolute　until　the　time　of　Louis　XIV。　　It　then　rapidly　declined；

and　it　would　be　truly　difficult　to　speak　of　the　absolutism　of

Louis　XVI。



This　pretended　master　was　the　slave　of　his　court；　his　ministers；

the　clergy；　and　the　nobles。　　He　did　what　they　forced　him　to　do

and　rarely　what　he　wished。　　Perhaps　no　Frenchman　was　so　little

free　as　the　king。



The　great　power　of　the　monarchy　resided　originally　in　the　Divine

origin　which　was　attributed　to　it；　and　in　the　traditions　which

had　accumulated　during　the　ages。　　These　formed　the　real　social

framework　of　the　country。



The　true　cause　of　the　disappearance　of　the　ancien　regime　was

simply　the　weakening　of　the　traditions　which　served　as　its

foundations。　　When　after　repeated　criticism　it　could　find　no　more

defenders；　the　ancien　regime　crumbled　like　a　building　whose

foundations　have　been　destroyed。





2。　　The　Inconveniences　of　the　Ancien　Regime





A　long…established　system　of　government　will　always　finally　seem

acceptable　to　the　people　governed。　　Habit　masks　its

inconveniences；　which　appear　only　when　men　begin　to　think。　　Then

they　ask　how　they　could　ever　have　supported　them。　　The　truly

unhappy　man　is　the　man　who　believes　himself　miserable。



It　was　precisely　this　belief　which　was　gaining　ground　at　the　time

of　the　Revolution；　under　the　influence　of　the　writers　whose　work

we　shall　presently　study。　　Then　the　imperfections　of　the

ancien　regime　stared　all　men　in　the　face。　　They　were

numerous；　it　is　enough　to　mention　a　few。



Despite　the　apparent　authority　of　the　central　power；　the　kingdom；

formed　by　the　successive　conquest　of　independent　provinces；　was

divided　into　territories　each　of　which　had　its　own　laws　and

customs；　and　each　of　which　paid　different　imposts。　　Internal

customs…houses　separated　them。　　The　unity　of　France　was　thus