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！
The presence of these groups； actuated by different interests；
must make us consider an assembly as formed of superimposed and
heterogeneous crowds； each obeying its particular leaders。 The
law of the mental unity of crowds is manifested only in each
group； and it is only as a result of exceptional circumstances
that the different groups act with a single intention。
Each group in an assembly represents a single being。 The
individuals contributing to the formation of this being are no
longer themselves； and will unhesitatingly vote against their
convictions and their wishes。 On the eve of the day when Louis
XVI。 was to be condemned Vergniaud protested with indignation
against the suggestion that he should vote for his death； but he
did so vote on the following day。
The action of a group consists chiefly in fortifying hesitating
opinions。 All feeble individual convictions become confirmed
upon becoming collective。
Leaders of great repute or unusual violence can sometimes； by
acting on all the groups of an assembly； make them a single
crowd。 The majority of the members of the Convention enacted
measures entirely contrary to their opinions under the influence
of a very small number of such leaders。
Collectivities have always given way before active sectaries。
The history of the revolutionary Assemblies shows how
pusillanimous they were； despite the boldness of their language
respecting kings； before the leaders of the popular riots。 The
invasion of a band of energumens commanded by an imperious leader
was enough to make them vote then and there the most absurd and
contradictory measures。
An assembly； having the characteristics of a crowd； will； like a
crowd； be extreme in its sentiments。 Excessive in its violence；
it will be excessive in its cowardice。 In general it will be
insolent to the weak and servile before the strong。
We remember the fearful humility of the Parliament when the
youthful Louis XIV。 entered； whip in hand； to pronounce his brief
speech。 We know with what increasing impertinence the
Constituent Assembly treated Louis XVI。 as it felt that he was
becoming defenceless。 Finally； we recall the terror of the
Convention under the reign of Robespierre。
This characteristic of assemblies being a general law； the
convocation of an assembly by a sovereign when his power is
failing must be regarded as a gross error in psychology。 The
assembling of the States General cost the life of Louis
XVI。 It all but lost Henry III。 his throne； when； obliged to
leave Paris； he had the unhappy idea of assembling the Estates at
Blois。 Conscious of the weakness of the king； the Estates at
once spoke as masters of the situation； modifying taxes；
dismissing officials； and claiming that their decisions should
have the force of law。
This progressive exaggeration of sentiments was plainly
demonstrated in all the assemblies of the Revolution。 The
Constituent Assembly； at first extremely respectful toward the
royal authority and its prerogatives； finally proclaimed itself a
sovereign Assembly； and treated Louis XVI as a mere official。
The Convention； after relatively moderate beginnings； ended with
a preliminary form of the Terror； when judgments were still
surrounded by certain legal guarantees： then； quickly increasing
its powers； it enacted a law depriving all accused persons of the
right of defence； permitting their condemnation upon the mere
suspicion of being suspect。 Yielding more and more to its
sanguinary frenzy； it finally decimated itself。 Girondists；
Hebertists； Dantonists； and Robespierrists successively ended
their careers at the hands of the executioner。
This exaggeration of the sentiments of assemblies explains why
they were always so little able to control their own destinies
and why they so often arrived at conclusions exactly contrary to
the ends proposed。 Catholic and royalist； the Constituent
Assembly； instead of the constitutional monarchy it wished to
establish and the religion it wished to defend； rapidly led
France to a violent republic and the persecution of the clergy。
Political assemblies are composed； as we have seen； of
heterogeneous groups； but they have sometimes been formed of
homogeneous groups； as； for instance； certain of the clubs； which
played so enormous a part during the Revolution； and whose
psychology deserves a special examination。
2。 The Psychology of the Revolutionary Clubs。
Small assemblies of men possessing the same opinions； the same
beliefs； and the same interests； which eliminate all dissentient
voices； differ from the great assemblies by the unity of their
sentiments and therefore their wills。 Such were the communes；
the religious congregations； the corporations； and the clubs
during the Revolution； the secret societies during the first half
of the nineteenth century； and the Freemasons and syndicalists of
to…day。
The points of difference between a heterogeneous assembly and a
homogeneous club must be thoroughly grasped if we are to
comprehend the progress of the French Revolution。 Until the
Directory and especially during the Convention the Revolution was
directed by the clubs。
Despite the unity of will due to the absence of dissident parties
the clubs obey the laws of the psychology of crowds。 They are
consequently subjugated by leaders。 This we see especially in
the Jacobin Club； which was dominated by Robespierre。
The function of the leader of a club； a homogeneous crowd； is far
more difficult than that of a leader of a heterogeneous crowd。
The latter may easily be led by harping on a small number of
strings； but in a homogeneous group like a club； whose
sentiments and interests are identical； the leader must
know how to humour them and is often himself led。
Part of the strength of homogeneous agglomerations resides in
their anonymity。 We know that during the Commune of 1871 a few
anonymous orders sufficed to effect the burning of the finest
monuments of Paris： the Hotel de Ville； the Tuileries； the
Cour des Comptes； the buildings of the Legion of Honour； &c。 A
brief order from the anonymous committees； ‘‘Burn Finances； burn
Tuileries；'' &c。； was immediately executed。 An unlooked…for
chance only saved the Louvre and its collections。 We know too
what religious attention is in our days accorded to the most
absurd injunctions of the anonymous leaders of the trades unions。
The clubs of Paris and the insurrectionary Commune were not less
scrupulously obeyed at the time of the Revolution。 An order
emanating from these was sufficient to hurl upon the Assembly a
popular army which dictated its wishes。
Summing up the history of the Convention in another chapter； we
shall see how frequent were these irruptions； and with what
servility the Assembly； which according to the legends was so
powerful bowed itself before the most imperative injunctions of a
handful of rioters。 Instructed by experience； the Directory
closed the clubs and put an end to the invasion of the populace
by energetically shooting them down。
The Convention had early grasped the superiority of homogeneous
groups over heterogeneous assemblies in matters of government；
which is why it subdivided itself into committees composed each
of a limited number of individuals。 These committeesof
Public Safety； of Finance； &c。formed small sovereign assemblies
in the midst of the larger Assembly。 Their power was held in
check only by that of the clubs。
The preceding considerations show the power of groups over the
wills of the members composing them。 If the group is
homogeneous； this action is considerable； if it is heterogeneous；
it is less considerable but may still become important； either
because the more powerful groups of an assembly will dominate
those whose cohesion is weaker or because certain contagious
sentiments will often extend themselves to all the members of an
assembly。
A memorable example of this influence of groups occurred at the
time of the Revolution； when； on the night of the 4th of August；
the nobles voted； on the proposition of one of their members； the
abandonment of feudal privileges。 Yet we know that the
Revolution resulted in part from the refusal of the clergy and
the nobles to renounce their privileges。 Why did they refuse to
renounce them at first？ Simply because men in a crowd do not act
as the same men singly。 Individually no member of the nobility
would ever have abandoned his rights。
Of this influence of assemblies upon their members Napoleon at
St。 Helena cited some curious examples： ‘‘Nothing was more
common than to meet with men at this period quite unlike the
reputation that their acts and words would seem to justify。 For
instance； one might have supposed Monge to be a terrible fellow；
when war was decided upon he mounted the tribune of the Jacobins