the psychology of revolution- 第7部分

heretics　on　French　soil　was　intolerable　to　the　Catholic　clergy；

who　endeavoured　to　persecute　them　in　various　ways。　　As　these

persecutions　had　little　result；　Louis　XIV。　resorted　to

dragonnading　them　in　1685；　when　many　individuals　perished；　but

without　further　result。　　Under　the　pressure　of　the　clergy；

notably　of　Bossuett；　the　Edict　of　Nantes　was　revoked；　and　the

Protestants　were　forced　to　accept　conversion　or　to　leave　France。　

This　disastrous　emigration　lasted　a　long　time；　and　is　said　to

have　cost　France　400；000　inhabitants；　men　of　notable　energy；

since　they　had　the　courage　to　listen　to　their　conscience　rather

than　their　interests。





6。　　The　results　of　Religious　Revolutions。





If　religious　revolutions　were　judged　only　by　the　gloomy　story　of

the　Reformation；　we　should　be　forced　to　regard　them　as　highly

disastrous。　　But　all　have　not　played　a　like　part；　the　civilising

influence　of　certain　among　them　being　considerable。



By　giving　a　people　moral　unity　they　greatly　increase　its　material

power。　　We　see　this　notably　when　a　new　faith；　brought　by

Mohammed；　transforms　the　petty　and　impotent　tribes　of　Arabia　into

a　formidable　nation。



Such　a　new　religious　belief　does　not　merely　render　a　people

homogeneous。　　It　attains　a　result　that　no　philosophy；　no　code

ever　attained：　it　sensibly　transforms　what　is　almost

unchangeable；　the　sentiments　of　a　race。



We　see　this　at　the　period　when　the　most　powerful　religious

revolution　recorded　by　history　overthrew　paganism　to　substitute　a

God　who　came　from　the　plains　of　Galilee。　　The　new　ideal　demanded

the　renunciation　of　all　the　joys　of　existence　in　order　to

acquire　the　eternal　happiness　of　heaven。　　No　doubt　such　an　ideal

was　readily　accepted　by　the　poor；　the　enslaved；　the　disinherited

who　were　deprived　of　all　the　joys　of　life　here　below；　to　whom　an

enchanting　future　was　offered　in　exchange　for　a　life　without

hope。　　But　the　austere　existence　so　easily　embraced　by　the　poor

was　also　embraced　by　the　rich。　　In　this　above　all　was　the　power

of　the　new　faith　manifested。



Not　only　did　the　Christian　revolution　transform　manners：　it　also

exercised；　for　a　space　of　two　thousand　years；　a　preponderating

influence　over　civilisation。　　Directly　a　religious　faith　triumphs

all　the　elements　of　civilisation　naturally　adapt　themselves　to

it；　so　that　civilisation　is　rapidly　transformed。　　Writers；

artists　and　philosophers　merely　symbolise；　in　their　works；　the

ideas　of　the　new　faith。



When　any　religious　or　political　faith　whatsoever　has　triumphed；

not　only　is　reason　powerless　to　affect　it；　but　it　even　finds

motives　which　impel　it　to　interpret　and　so　justify　the　faith　in

question；　and　to　strive　to　impose　it　upon　others。　　There　were

probably　as　many　theologians　and　orators　in　the　time　of　Moloch；

to　prove　the　utility　of　human　sacrifices；　as　there　were　at　other

periods　to　glorify　the　Inquisition；　the　massacre　of　St。

Bartholomew；　and　the　hecatombs　of　the　Terror。



We　must　not　hope　to　see　peoples　possessed　by　strong　beliefs

readily　achieve　tolerance。　　The　only　people　who　attained　to

toleration　in　the　ancient　world　were　the　polytheists。　　The

nations　which　practise　toleration　at　the　present　time　are　those

that　might　well　be　termed　polytheistical；　since；　as　in　England

and　America；　they　are　divided　into　innumerable　sects。　

Under　identical　names　they　really　adore　very　different　deities。



The　multiplicity　of　beliefs　which　results　in　such　toleration

finally　results　also　in　weakness。　　We　therefore　come　to　a

psychological　problem　not　hitherto　resolved：　how　to　possess　a

faith　at　once　powerful　and　tolerant。



The　foregoing　brief　explanation　reveals　the　large　part　played　by

religious　revolutions　and　the　power　of　beliefs。　　Despite　their

slight　rational　value　they　shape　history；　and　prevent　the　peoples

from　remaining　a　mass　of　individuals　without　cohesion　or

strength。　　Man　has　needed　them　at　all　times　to　orientate　his

thought　and　guide　his　conduct。　　No　philosophy　has　as　yet

succeeded　in　replacing　them。







CHAPTER　III



THE　ACTION　OF　GOVERNMENTS　IN　REVOLUTIONS



1。　　The　feeble　resistance　of　Governments　in　time　of　Revolution。



Many　modern　nationsFrance；　Spain；　Italy；　Austria；　Poland；

Japan；　Turkey；　Portugal；　&c。have　known　revolutions　within　the

last　century。　　These　were　usually　characterised　by　their

instantaneous　quality　and　the　facility　with　which　the　governments

attacked　were　overthrown。



The　instantaneous　nature　of　these　revolutions　is　explained　by　the

rapidity　of　mental　contagion　due　to　modern　methods　of　publicity。　

The　slight　resistance　of　the　governments　attacked　is　more

surprising。　　It　implies　a　total　inability　to　comprehend　and

foresee　created　by　a　blind　confidence　in　their　own　strength。



The　facility　with　which　governments　fall　is　not　however　a　new

phenomenon。　　It　has　been　proved　more　than　once；　not　only　in

autocratic　systems；　which　are　always　overturned　by　palace

conspiracies；　but　also　in　governments　perfectly　instructed　in　the

state　of　public　opinion　by　the　press　and　their　own　agents。



Among　these　instantaneous　downfalls　one　of　the　most　striking　was

that　which　followed　the　Ordinances　of　Charles　X。　　This　monarch

was；　as　we　know；　overthrown　in　four　days。　　His　minister

Polignac　had　taken　no　measures　of　defence；　and　the　king　was　so

confident　of　the　tranquillity　of　Paris　that　he　had　gone　hunting。　

The　army　was　not　in　the　least　hostile；　as　in　the　reign　of　Louis

XVI。；　but　the　troops；　badly　officered；　disbanded　before　the

attacks　of　a　few　insurgents。



The　overthrow　of　Louis…Philippe　was　still　more　typical；　since　it

did　not　result　from　any　arbitrary　action　on　the　part　of　the

sovereign。　　This　monarch　was　not　surrounded　by　the　hatred　which

finally　surrounded　Charles　X。；　and　his　fall　was　the　result　of　an

insignificant　riot　which　could　easily　have　been　repressed。



Historians；　who　can　hardly　comprehend　how　a　solidly　constituted

government；　supported　by　an　imposing　army；　can　be　overthrown　by　a

few　rioters；　naturally　attributed　the　fall　of　Louis…Philippe　to

deep…seated　causes。　　In　reality　the　incapacity　of　the　generals

entrusted　with　his　defence　was　the　real　cause　of　his　fall。



This　case　is　one　of　the　most　instructive　that　could　be　cited；　and

is　worthy　of　a　moment's　consideration。　　It　has　been　perfectly

investigated　by　General　Bonnal；　in　the　light　of　the　notes　of　an

eye…witness；　General　Elchingen。　　Thirty…six　thousand　troops　were

then　in　Paris；　but　the　weakness　and　incapacity　of　their　officers

made　it　impossible　to　use　them。　　Contradictory　orders　were　given；

and　finally　the　troops　were　forbidden　to　fire　on　the　people；　who；

moreoverand　nothing　could　have　been　more　dangerouswere

permitted　to　mingle　with　the　troops。　　The　riot　succeeded　without

fighting　and　forced　the　king　to　abdicate。



Applying　to　the　preceding　case　our　knowledge　of　the

psychology　of　crowds；　General　Bonnal　shows　how　easily　the　riot

which　overthrew　Louis…Philippe　could　have　been　controlled。　　He

proves；　notably；　that　if　the　commanding　officers　had　not

completely　lost　their　heads　quite　a　small　body　of　troops　could

have　prevented　the　insurgents　from　invading　the　Chamber　of

Deputies。　　This　last；　composed　of　monarchists；　would　certainly

have　proclaimed　the　Count　of　Paris　under　the　regency　of　his

mother。



Similar　phenomena　were　observable　in　the　revolutions　of　Spain　and

Portugal。



These　facts　show　the　role　of　petty　accessory　circumstances

in　great　events；　and　prove　that　one　must　not　speak　too　readily　of

the　general　laws　of　history。　　Without　the　riot　which　overthrew

Louis…Philippe；　we　should　probably　have　seen　neither　the　Republic

of　1848；　nor　the　Second　Empire；　nor　Sedan；　nor　the　invasion；　nor

the　loss　of　Alsace。



In　the　revolutions　of　which　I　have　just　been　speaking　the　army

was　of　no　assistance　to　the　government；　but　did　not　turn　against

it。　　It　sometimes　happens　otherwise。　　It　is　often　the　army　which

effects　the　revolution；　as　in　Turkey　and　Portugal。　　The

innumerable　revolutions　of　the　Latin　republics　of　America　are

effected　by　the　army。



When　a　revolution　is　effected　by　an　army　the　new　rulers　naturally

fall　under　its　domination。　　I　have　already　recalled　the　fact　that

this　was　the　case　at　the　end　of　the　Roman　Empire；　when　the

emperors　were　made　and　unmade　by　the　soldiery。



The　same　thing　has　sometimes　been　witnessed　in　modern　times。　　The

following　extract　from　a　newspaper；　with　reference　to　the

Greek　revolution；　shows　what　becomes　of　a　government　dominated　by

its　army：



‘‘One　day　it　was　announced　that　eighty　officers　of　the　navy　would

send　in　their　resignations　if　the　government　did　not　dismiss　the

leaders　of　whom　they　complained。　　Another　time　it　was　the

agricultural　labourers　on　a　farm　（metairie）　belonging　to　the

Crown　Prince　who　demanded　the　partition　of　the　soil　among　them。　

The　navy　protested　against　the　promotion　promised　to　Colonel

Zorbas。　　Colonel　Zorbas；　after　a　week　of　discussion　with

Lieutenant　Typaldos；　treated　with　the　President　of　the　Council　as

one　power　with　another。　　During　this　time　the　Federation　of　the

corporations　abused　the　officers　of　the　navy。　　A　deputy　demanded

that　these　officers　and　their　families　should　be　treated　as

brigands。　　When　Commander　Miaoulis　fired　on　the　rebels；　the

sailors；　who　first　of　all　had　obeyed　Typaldos；　returned　to　duty。　

This　is　no　longer　the　harmonious　Greece　of　Pericles　and

Themistocles。　　It　is　a　hideous　camp　of　Agramant。''



A　revolution　cannot　be　effected　without　the　assistance　or　at

least　the　neutrality　of　the　army；　but　it　often　happens　that　the

movement　commences　without　it。　　This　was　the　case　with　the

revolutions　of　1830　and　1848；　and　that　of　1870；　which　overthrew

the　Empire　after　the　humiliation　of　France　by　the　surrender　of

Sedan。



The　majority　of　revolutions　take　place　in　the　capitals；　and　by

means　of　contagion　spread　through　the　country；　but　this　is　not　a

constant　ru