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 advantages of corruption。
‘‘Democracy has therefore two extremes to avoid； the extreme of
the spirit of equality leads to the despotism of a single person；
as the despotism of a single person leads to conquest。''
The ideal of Montesquieu was the English constitutional
government； which prevented the monarchy from degenerating into
despotism。 Otherwise the influence of this philosopher at the
moment of the Revolution was very slight。
As for the Encyclopaedists； to whom such a considerable
role is attributed； they hardly dealt with politics；
excepting d'Holbach； a liberal monarchist like Voltaire and
Diderot。 They wrote chiefly in defence of individual liberty；
opposing the encroachments of the Church； at that time extremely
intolerant and inimical to philosophers。 Being neither
Socialists nor democrats； the Revolution could not utilise any of
their principles。
Voltaire himself was by no means a partisan of democracy。
‘‘Democracy；'' he said； ‘‘seems only to suit a very small
country； and even then it must be fortunately situated。
Little as it may be； it will make many mistakes； because it will
be composed of men。 Discord will prevail there as in a convent
full of monks； but there will be no St。 Bartholomew's day； no
Irish massacres； no Sicilian Vespers； no Inquisition； no
condemnation to the galleys for having taken water from the sea
without paying for it； unless we suppose this republic to be
composed of devils in a corner of hell。''
All these men who are supposed to have inspired the Revolution
had opinions which were far from subversive； and it is really
difficult to see that they had any real influence on the
development of the revolutionary movement。 Rousseau was one of
the very few democratic philosophers of his age； which is why his
Contrat Social became the Bible of the men of the Terror。 It
seemed to furnish the rational justification necessary to excuse
the acts deriving from unconscious mystic and affective impulses
which no philosophy had inspired。
To be quite truthful； the democratic instincts of Rousseau were
by no means above suspicion。 He himself considered that his
projects for social reorganisation； based upon popular
sovereignty； could be applied only to a very small State； and
when the Poles asked him for a draft democratic Constitution he
advised them to choose a hereditary monarch。
Among the theories of Rousseau that relating to the perfection of
the primitive social state had a great success。 He asserted；
together with various writers of his time； that primitive mankind
was perfect； it was corrupted only by society。 By modifying
society by means of good laws one might bring back the
happiness of the early world。 Ignorant of all psychology； he
believed that men were the same throughout time and space and
that they could all be ruled by the same laws and institutions。
This was then the general belief。 ‘‘The vices and virtues of the
people；'' wrote Helvetius； ‘‘are always a necessary effect of its
legislation。 。 。 。 How can we doubt that virtue is in the case
of all peoples the result of the wisdom； more or less perfect； of
the administration？''
There could be no greater mistake。
3。 The Philosophical Ideas of the Bourgeoisie at the Time of
the Revolution。
It is by no means easy to say just what were the social and
political conceptions of a Frenchman of the middle classes at the
moment of the Revolution。 They might be reduced to a few
formulae concerning fraternity； equality； and popular
government； summed up in the celebrated Declaration of the Rights
of Man； of which we shall have occasion to quote a few passages。
The philosophers of the eighteenth century do not seem to have
been very highly rated by the men of the Revolution。 Rarely are
they quoted in the speeches of the time。 Hypnotised by their
classical memories of Greece and Rome； the new legislators re…
read their Plato and their Plutarch。 They wished to revive the
constitution of Sparta； with its manners； its frugal habits； and
its laws。
Lycurgus； Solon； Miltiades； Manlius Torquatus； Brutus； Mucius
Scaevola； even the fabulous Minos himself； became as familiar
in the tribune as in the theatre； and the public went crazy over
them。 The shades of the heroes of antiquity hovered over
the revolutionary assemblies。 Posterity alone has replaced them
by the shades of the philosophers of the eighteenth century。
We shall see that in reality the men of this period； generally
represented as bold innovators guided by subtle philosophers；
professed to effect no innovations whatever； but to return to a
past long buried in the mists of history； and which； moreover；
they scarcely ever in the least understood。
The more reasonable； who did not go so far back for their models；
aimed merely at adopting the English constitutional system； of
which Montesquieu and Voltaire had sung the praises； and which
all nations were finally to imitate without violent crises。
Their ambitions were confined to a desire to perfect the existing
monarchy； not to overthrow it。 But in time of revolution men
often take a very different path from that they propose to take。
At the time of the convocation of the States General no one would
ever have supposed that a revolution of peaceful bourgeoisie
and men of letters would rapidly be transformed into one of the
most sanguinary dictatorships of history。
CHAPTER IV
PSYCHOLOGICAL ILLUSIONS RESPECTING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
1。 Illusions respecting Primitive Man； the Return to a State of
Nature； and the Psychology of the People。
We have already repeated； and shall again repeat； that the errors
of a doctrine do not hinder its propagation； so that all we have
to consider here is its influence upon men's minds。
But although the criticism of erroneous doctrines is seldom of
practical utility； it is extremely interesting from a
psychological point of view。 The philosopher who wishes to
understand the working of men's minds should always carefully
consider the illusions which they live with。 Never； perhaps； in
the course of history have these illusions appeared so profound
and so numerous as during the Revolution。
One of the most prominent was the singular conception of the
nature of our first ancestors and primitive societies。
Anthropology not having as yet revealed the conditions of our
remoter forbears； men supposed； being influenced by the legends
of the Bible； that man had issued perfect from the hands of the
Creator。 The first societies were models which were afterwards
ruined by civilisation； but to which mankind must return。
The return to the state of nature was very soon the general cry。
‘‘The fundamental principle of all morality； of which I have
treated in my writings；'' said Rousseau； ‘‘is that man is a being
naturally good； loving justice and order。''
Modern science； by determining； from the surviving remnants； the
conditions of life of our first ancestors； has long ago shown the
error of this doctrine。 Primitive man has become an ignorant and
ferocious brute； as ignorant as the modern savage of goodness；
morality； and pity。 Governed only by his instinctive impulses；
he throws himself on his prey when hunger drives him from his
cave； and falls upon his enemy the moment he is aroused by
hatred。 Reason； not being born； could have no hold over his
instincts。
The aim of civilisation； contrary to all revolutionary beliefs；
has been not to return to the state of nature but to escape from
it。 It was precisely because the Jacobins led mankind back to
the primitive condition by destroying all the social restraints
without which no civilisation can exist that they transformed a
political society into a barbarian horde。
The ideas of these theorists concerning the nature of man were
about as valuable as those of a Roman general concerning the
power of omens。 Yet their influence as motives of action was
considerable。 The Convention was always inspired by such ideas。
The errors concerning our primitive ancestors were excusable
enough； since before modern discoveries had shown us the real
conditions of their existence these were absolutely unknown。 But
the absolute ignorance of human psychology displayed by the men
of the Revolution is far less easy to understand。
It would really seem as though the philosophers and writers of
the eighteenth century must have been totally deficient in the
smallest faculty of observation。 They lived amidst their
contemporaries without seeing them and without understanding
them。 Above all； they had not a suspicion of the true nature of
the popular mind。 The man of the people always appeared to them
in the likeness of the chimerical model created by their dreams。
As ignorant of psychology as of the teachings of history； they
considered