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！
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 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