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！
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 C