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！
often been expressed。 For a long time they had inspired the
politics of England。 Two thousand years earlier the Greek and
Latin authors had written in defence of liberty； had
cursed tyrants； and proclaimed the rights of popular sovereignty。
The middle classes who effected the Revolution； although； like
their fathers； they had learned all these things in text…books；
were not in any degree moved by them； because the moment when
such ideas could move them had not arrived。 How should the
people have been impressed by them at a time when all men were
accustomed to regard all hierarchies as natural necessities？
The actual influence of the philosophers in the genesis of the
Revolution was not that which was attributed to them。 They
revealed nothing new； but they developed the critical spirit
which no dogma can resist once the way is prepared for its
downfall。
Under the influence of this developing critical spirit things
which were no longer very greatly respected came to be respected
less and less。 When tradition and prestige had disappeared the
social edifice suddenly fell。
This progressive disaggregation finally descended to the people；
but was not commenced by the people。 The people follows
examples； but never sets them。
The philosophers； who could not have exerted any influence over
the people； did exert a great influence over the enlightened
portion of the nation。 The unemployed nobility； who had long
been ousted from their old functions； and who were consequently
inclined to be censorious； followed their leadership。 Incapable
of foresight； the nobles were the first to break with the
traditions that were their only raison d'etre。 As steeped
in humanitarianism and rationalism as the bourgeoisie of to…
day； they continually sapped their own privileges by their
criticisms。 As to…day； the most ardent reformers were found
among the favourites of fortune。 The aristocracy encouraged
dissertations on the social contract； the rights of man； and the
equality of citizens。 At the theatre it applauded plays which
criticised privileges； the arbitrariness and the incapacity of
men in high places； and abuses of all kinds。
As soon as men lose confidence in the foundations of the mental
framework which guides their conduct they feel at first uneasy
and then discontented。 All classes felt their old motives of
action gradually disappearing。 Things that had seemed sacred for
centuries were now sacred no longer。
The censorious spirit of the nobility and of the writers of the
day would not have sufficed to move the heavy load of tradition；
but that its action was added to that of other powerful
influences。 We have already stated； in citing Bossuet； that
under the ancien regime the religious and civil governments；
widely separated in our days； were intimately connected。 To
injure one was inevitably to injure the other。 Now； even before
the monarchical idea was shaken the force of religious tradition
was greatly diminished among cultivated men。 The constant
progress of knowledge had sent an increasing number of minds from
theology to science by opposing the truth observed to the truth
revealed。
This mental evolution； although as yet very vague； was sufficient
to show that the traditions which for so many centuries had
guided men had not the value which had been attributed to them；
and that it would soon be necessary to replace them。
But where discover the new elements which might； take the place
of tradition？ Where seek the magic ring which would raise a new
social edifice on the remains of that which no longer contented
men？
Men were agreed in attributing to reason the power that tradition
and the gods seemed to have lost。 How could its force be
doubted？ Its discoveries having been innumerable； was it not
legitimate to suppose that by applying it to the construction of
societies it would entirely transform them？ Its possible
function increased very rapidly in the thoughts of the more
enlightened； in proportion as tradition seemed more and more to
be distrusted。
The sovereign power attributed to reason must be regarded as the
culminating idea which not only engendered the Revolution but
governed it throughout。 During the whole Revolution men gave
themselves up to the most persevering efforts to break with the
past； and to erect society upon a new plan dictated by logic。
Slowly filtering downward； the rationalistic theories of the
philosophers meant to the people simply that all the things which
had been regarded as worthy of respect were now no longer worthy。
Men being declared equal； the old masters need no longer be
obeyed。
The multitude easily succeeded in ceasing to respect what the
upper classes themselves no longer respected。 When the barrier
of respect was down the Revolution was accomplished。
The first result of this new mentality was a general
insubordination。 Mme。 Vigee Lebrun relates that on the
promenade at Longchamps men of the people leaped on the
footboards of the carriages； saying； ‘‘Next year you will be
behind and we shall be inside。''
The populace was not alone in manifesting insubordination and
discontent。 These sentiments were general on the eve of the
Revolution。 ‘‘The lesser clergy；'' says Taine； ‘‘are hostile to
the prelates； the provincial gentry to the nobility of the court；
the vassals to the seigneurs； the peasants to the townsmen；'' &c。
This state of mind； which had been communicated from the nobles
and clergy to the people； also invaded the army。 At the moment
the States General were opened Necker said： ‘‘We are not sure of
the troops。'' The officers were becoming humanitarian and
philosophical。 The soldiers； recruited from the lowest class of
the population； did not philosophise； but they no longer obeyed。
In their feeble minds the ideas of equality meant simply the
suppression of all leaders and masters； and therefore of all
obedience。 In 1790 more than twenty regiments threatened their
officers； and sometimes； as at Nancy； threw them into prison。
The mental anarchy which； after spreading through all the classes
of society； finally invaded the army was the principal cause of
the disappearance of the ancien regime。 ‘‘It was the
defection of the army affected by the ideas of the Third
Estate；'' wrote Rivarol； ‘‘that destroyed royalty。''
2。 The supposed Influence of the Philosophers of the Eighteenth
Century upon the Genesis of the RevolutionTheir dislike of
Democracy。
Although the philosophers who have been supposed the inspirers of
the French Revolution did attack certain privileges and
abuses； we must not for that reason regard them as partisans of
popular government。 Democracy； whose role in Greek history
was familiar to them； was generally highly antipathetic to them。
They were not ignorant of the destruction and violence which are
its invariable accompaniments； and knew that in the time of
Aristotle it was already defined as ‘‘a State in which
everything； even the law； depends on the multitude set up as a
tyrant and governed by a few declamatory speakers。''
Pierre Bayle； the true forerunner of Voltaire； recalled in the
following terms the consequences of popular government in
Athens：
‘‘If one considers this history； which displays at great length
the tumult of the assemblies； the factions dividing the city； the
seditious disturbing it； the most illustrious subjects
persecuted； exiled； and punished by death at the will of a
violent windbag； one would conclude that this people； which so
prided itself on its liberty； was really the slave of a small
number of caballers； whom they called demagogues； and who made it
turn now in this direction； now in that； as their passions
changed； almost as the sea heaps the waves now one way； now
another； according to the winds which trouble it。 You will seek
in vain in Macedonia； which was a monarchy； for as many examples
of tyranny as Athenian history will afford。''
Montesquieu had no greater admiration for the democracy。 Having
described the three forms of governmentrepublican； monarchical；
and despotiche shows very clearly what popular government may
lead to：
‘‘Men were free with laws； men would fain be free without
them； what was a maxim is called severity； what was order is
called hindrance。 Formerly the welfare of individuals
constituted the public wealth； but now the public wealth becomes
the patrimony of individuals。 The republic is spoil； and its
strength is merely the power of a few citizens and the licence of
all。''
‘‘。 。 。 Little petty tyrants spring up who have all the vices of
a single tyrant。 Very soon what is left of liberty becomes
untenable； a single tyrant arises； and the people loses all； even
the advantages of corruption。
‘‘Democracy has therefore two extremes to avoid； the extr