Psychology

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
REVOLUTION
BY GUSTAVE LE BON
The Psychology of Revolution By Gustave Le Bon
Contents
INTRODUCTION 9
THE REVISION OF HISTORY 9
PART I 24
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS OF
REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS 24
BOOK I GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
REVOLUTION 25
CHAPTER I SCIENTIFIC AND POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS
26
1. CLASSIFICATION OF REVOLUTIONS. 26
3. POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS. 30
4. THE RESULTS OF POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS. 38
CHAPTER II RELIGIOUS REVOLUTIONS 43
1. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY OF RELIGIOUS
REVOLUTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE COMPREHENSION OF THE GREAT
POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS. 43
3. RATIONAL VALUE OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE
REFORMATION. 47
4. PROPAGATION OF THE REFORMATION. 52
5. CONFLICT BETWEEN DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS--
IMPOSSIBILITY OF TOLERANCE. 54
6. THE RESULTS OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTIONS. 64
CHAPTER III THE ACTION OF GOVERNMENTS IN
REVOLUTIONS 68
1.THE FEEBLE RESISTANCE OF GOVERNMENTS IN TIME OF
REVOLUTION. 68
2. HOW THE RESISTANCE OF GOVERNMENTS MAY OVERCOME
REVOLUTION. 74
3. REVOLUTIONS EFFECTED BY GOVERNMENTS.--EXAMPLES:
CHINA, TURKEY, &C. 76
2
4. SOCIAL ELEMENTS WHICH SURVIVE THE CHANGES OF

GOVERNMENT AFTER REVOLUTION. 82
CHAPTER IV THE PART PLAYED BY THE PEOPLE IN
REVOLUTI 86
1. THE STABILITY AND MALLEABILITY OF THE NATIONAL
MIND. 86
2. HOW THE PEOPLE REGARDS REVOLUTION. 91
3. THE SUPPOSED PART OF THE PEOPLE DURING REVOLUTION.
96
4. THE POPULAR ENTITY AND ITS CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS.
102
BOOK II THE FORMS OF MENTALITY
PREVALENT DURING REVOLUTION 111
CHAPTER I INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS OF CHARACTER
IN TIME OF REVOLUTION 112
1. TRANSFORMATIONS OF PERSONALITY. 112
2.ELEMENTS OF CHARACTER PREDOMINANT IN TIME OF
REVOLUTION. 115
CHAPTER II THE MYSTIC MENTALITY AND THE
JACOBIN MENTALITY 129
2. THE MYSTIC MENTALITY. 130
3. THE JACOBIN MENTALITY. 138
CHAPTER III THE REVOLUTIONARY AND CRIMINAL
MENTALITIES 146
1. THE REVOLUTIONARY MENTALITY. 146
2. THE CRIMINAL MENTALITY. 149
CHAPTER IV THE PSYCHOLOGY OF REVOLUTIONARY
CROWDS 153
1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CROWD. 153
2. HOW STABILITY OF THE RACIAL MIND
THE LIMITS THE
OSCILLATIONS OF THE MIND OF THE CROWD. 158
4. THE ROLE OF THE LEADER IN REVOLUTIONARY
MOVEMENTS. 165
3
CHAPTER V THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE

REVOLUTIONARY ASSEMBLIES 170
1. PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GREAT
REVOLUTIONARY ASSEMBLIES. 170
2. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE REVOLUTIONARY CLUBS. 175
3. A SUGGESTED EXPLANATION OF THE PROGRESSIVE
EXAGGERATION OF SENTIMENTS IN ASSEMBLIES. 180
PART II183
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 183
BOOK I THE ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH
REVOLUTION 184
CHAPTER I THE OPINIONS OF HISTORIANS
CONCERNING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 185
1. THE HISTORIANS OF THE REVOLUTION. 185
2. THE THEORY OF FATALISM IN RESPECT OF THE
REVOLUTION. 191
3. THE HESITATIONS OF RECENT HISTORIANS OF THE
REVOLUTION. 197
4. IMPARTIALITY IN HISTORY. 203
CHAPTER II THE PSYCHOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF
THE ANCIEN REGIME 208
1. THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY AND THE BASES OF THE ANCIEN
REGIME. 208
2. THE INCONVENIENCES OF THE ANCIEN REGIME 210
3. LIFE UNDER THE ANCIEN REGIME. 215
4. EVOLUTION OF MONARCHICAL FEELING DURING THE
REVOLUTION. 219
CHAPTER III MENTAL ANARCHY AT THE TIME OF THE
REVOLUTION AND THE INFLUENCE ATTRIBUTED TO THE
PHILOSOPHERS 225
1. ORIGIN AND PROPAGATION OF REVOLUTIONARY IDEAS.
225
4
3. THE PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS OF THE BOURGEOISIE AT THE

TIME OF THE REVOLUTION. 240
CHAPTER IV PSYCHOLOGICAL ILLUSIONS RESPECTING
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 243
1. ILLUSIONS RESPECTING PRIMITIVE MAN, THE RETURN TO A
STATE OF NATURE, AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE PEOPLE. 243
2. ILLUSIONS RESPECTING THE POSSIBILITY OF SEPARATING
MAN FROM HIS PAST AND THE POWER OF TRANSFORMATION
ATTRIBUTED TO THE LAW. 247
3. ILLUSIONS RESPECTING THE THEORETICAL VALUE OF THE

GREAT REVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES. 250
BOOK II THE RATIONAL, AFFECTIVE,

MYSTIC, AND COLLECTIVE INFLUENCES ACTIVE
DURING THE REVOLUTION 257
CHAPTER I THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE CONSTITUENT
ASSEM 258
1. PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ACTIVE DURING THE FRENCH
REVOLUTION. 258
2. DISSOLUTION OF THE ANCIEN REGIME. THE ASSEMBLING
OF THE STATES GENERAL. 262
3. THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY. 265

CHAPTER II THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY 285
1. POLITICAL EVENTS DURING THE LIFE OF THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY. 285
CHAPTER III THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE CONVENTION
296
1. THE LEGEND OF THE CONVENTION. 296
2. RESULTS OF THE TRIUMPH OF THE JACOBIN RELIGION
302
CHAPTER IV THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONVENTION
316
1. THE ACTIVITY OF THE CLUBS AND THE COMMUNE DURING
THE CONVENTION. 316
5
3. THE END OF THE CONVENTION. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE

DIRECTORY. 329
CHAPTER V INSTANCES OF REVOLUTIONARY VIOLENCE
333
1. PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES OF REVOLUTIONARY VIOLENCE.
333
2. THE REVOLUTIONARY TRIBUNALS. 337
3. THE TERROR IN THE PROVINCES. 341
CHAPTER VI THE ARMIES OF THE REVOLUTION 349
1. THE REVOLUTIONARY ASSEMBLIES AND THE ARMIES.
349
2. THE STRUGGLE OF EUROPE AGAINST THE REVOLUTION.
351
3. PSYCHOLOGICAL AND MILITARY FACTORS WHICH
DETERMINED THE SUCCESS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY ARMIES. 356
CHAPTER VII PSYCHOLOGY OF THE LEADERS OF

THE REVOLUTION 364
1. MENTALITY OF THE MEN OF THE REVOLUTION. THE
RESPECTIVE INFLUENCE OF VIOLENT AND FEEBLE CHARACTERS.
364
2. PSYCHOLOGY OF THE COMMISSARIES OR
REPRESENTATIVES `ÒN MISSION.'' 367
3. DANTON AND ROBESPIERRE. 374
5.THE DESTINY OF THOSE MEMBERS OF THE CONVENTION
WHO SURVIVED THE REVOLUTION. 393
BOOK III THE CONFLICT BETWEEN
ANCESTRAL INFLUENCES AND REVOLUTIONARY
PRINCIPLES 397
CHAPTER I THE LAST CONVULSIONS OF ANARCHY--
THE DIRECTORY 398
1. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE DIRECTORY. 398
2. DESPOTIC GOVERNMENT OF THE DIRECTORY.
RECRUDESCENCE OF THE TERROR. 403
6
3. THE ADVENT OF BONAPARTE.410

4. CAUSES OF THE DURATION OF THE REVOLUTION. 414
CHAPTER II THE RESTORATION OF ORDER. THE
CONSULAR REPUBLIC 419
1. HOW THE WORK OF THE REVOLUTION WAS CONFIRMED BY
THE CONSULATE. 419
2. THE REORGANISATION OF FRANCE BY THE CONSULAT
422
3. PSYCHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS WHICH DETERMINED THE
SUCCESS OF THE WORK OF THE CONSULATE. 428
CHAPTER III POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE
CONFLICT BETWEEN TRADITIONS AND REVOLUTIONARY
PRINCIPLES DURING THE LAST CENTURY 435
1. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES OF THE CONTINUED
REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS TO WHICH FRANCE HAS BEEN
SUBJECT. 435
2. SUMMARY OF A CENTURY'S REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT IN

FRANCE. 443
PART III 455
THE RECENT EVOLUTION OF THE
REVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES 455
CHAPTER I THE PROGRESS OF DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS
SINCE THE REVOLUTION 456
1. GRADUAL PROPAGATION OF DEMOCRATIC IDEAS AFTER
THE REVOLUTION. 456
2.THE UNEQUAL INFLUENCE OF THE THREE FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF THE REVOLUTION. 460
3. THE DEMOCRACY OF THE `ÌNTELLECTUALS'' AND
POPULAR DEMOCRACY. 463
4. NATURAL INEQUALITIES AND DEMOCRATIC
EQUALISATION. 467
CHAPTER II THE RESULTS OF DEMOCRATIC EVOLUTION
473
7
1. THE INFLUENCE UPON SOCIAL EVOLUTION OF THEORIES OF

NO RATIONAL VALUE. 473
THE JACOBIN SPIRIT

2. AND THE MENTALITY CREATED BY
DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS. 476
3. UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES. 485
4. THE CRAVING FOR REFORMS. 490
5. SOCIAL DISTINCTIONS IN DEMOCRACIES AND
DEMOCRATIC IDEAS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES. 494
CHAPTER III THE NEW FORMS OF DEMOCRATIC BELIEF
499
1. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOUR. 499
2. THE EVOLUTION OF THE WORKING-CLASSES AND THE
SYNDICALIST MOVEMENT. 503
3. WHY DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS
CERTAIN MODERN ARE
GRADUALLY BEING TRANSFORMED INTO GOVERNMENTS BY
ADMINISTRATIVE CASTES. 509
CONCLUSIONS 516
8
INTRODUCTION
THE REVISION OF HISTORY
The present age is not merely an epoch of
discovery; it is also a period of revision of the
various elements of knowledge. Having recognised
that there are no phenomena of which the first
cause is still accessible, science has resumed the
examination of her ancient certitudes, and has
proved their fragility. To-day she sees her ancient
principles vanishing one by one. Mechanics is losing
its axioms, and matter, formerly the eternal
substratum of the worlds, becomes a simple
aggregate of ephemeral forces in transitory
condensation.
Despite its conjectural side, by virtue of
which it to some extent escapes the severest form
of criticism, history has not been free from this
universal revision. There is no longer a single one
of its phases of which we can say that it is certainly
known. What appeared to be definitely acquired is
now once more put in question.
9
Among the events whose study seemed

completed was the French Revolution. Analysed by
several generations of writers, one might suppose it
to be perfectly elucidated. What new thing can be
said of it, except in modification of some of its
details?
And yet its most positive defenders are
beginning to hesitate in their judgments. Ancient
evidence proves to be far from impeccable. The
faith in dogmas once held sacred is shaken. The
latest literature of the Revolution betrays these
uncertainties. Having related, men are more and
more chary of drawing conclusions.
Not only are the heroes of this great drama
discussed without indulgence, but thinkers are
asking whether the new dispensation which followed
the ancien regime would not have established itself
naturally, without violence, in the course of
progressive civilisation. The results obtained no
longer seem in correspondence either with their
immediate cost or with the remoter consequences
10
which the Revolution evoked from the possibilities of

history.
Several causes have led to the revision of
this tragic period. Time has calmed passions,
numerous documents have gradually emerged from
the archives, and the historian is learning to
interpret them independently.
But it is perhaps modern psychology that
has most effectually influenced our ideas, by
enabling us more surely to read men and the
motives of their conduct.
Among those of its discoveries which are
henceforth applicable to history we must mention,
above all, a more profound understanding of
ancestral influences, the laws which rule the actions
of the crowd, data relating to the disaggregation of
personality, mental contagion, the unconscious
formation of beliefs, and the distinction between the
various forms of logic.
To tell the truth, these applications of
science, which are utilised in this book, have not
E-Text Conversion By Nalanda Digital Library 11

been so utilised hitherto. Historians have generally

stopped short at the study of documents, and even
that study is sufficient to excite the doubts of which
I have spoken.
The great events which shape the destinies
of peoples-- revolutions, for example, and the
outbreak of religious beliefs-- are sometimes so
difficult to explain that one must limit oneself to a
mere statement.
From the time of my first historical
researches I have been struck by the impenetrable
aspect of certain essential phenomena, those
relating to the genesis of beliefs especially; I felt
convinced that something fundamental was lacking
that was essential to their interpretation. Reason
having said all it could say, nothing more could be
expected of it, and other means must be sought of
comprehending what had not been elucidated.
For a long time these important questions
remained obscure to me. Extended travel, devoted
to the study of the remnants of vanished

civilisations, had not done much to throw light upon

them.
Reflecting upon it continually, I was forced
to recognise that the problem was composed of a
series of other problems, which I should have to
study separately. This I did for a period of twenty
years, presenting the results of my researches in a
succession of volumes.
One of the first was devoted to the study of
the psychological laws of the evolution of peoples.
Having shown that the historic races--that is, the
races formed by the hazards of history--finally
acquired psychological characteristics as stable as
their anatomical characteristics, I attempted to
explain how a people transforms its institutions, its
languages, and its arts. I explained in the same
work why it was that individual personalities, under
the influence of sudden variations of environment,
might be entirely disaggregated.
But besides the fixed collectivities formed by
the peoples, there are mobile and transitory

collectivities known as crowds. Now these crowds

or mobs, by the aid of which the great movements
of history are accomplished, have characteristics

absolutely different from those of the individuals
who compose them. What are these characteristics,

and how are they evolved? This new problem was
examined in The Psychology of the Crowd.

Only after these studies did I begin to
perceive certain influences which had escaped me.

But this was not all. Among the most
important factors of history one was preponderant--

the factor of beliefs. How are these beliefs born,

and are they really rational and voluntary, as was

long taught? Are they not rather unconscious and

independent of all reason? A difficult question,

which I dealt with in my last book, Opinions and
Beliefs.

So long as psychology regards beliefs as

voluntary and rational they will remain inexplicable.
Having proved that they are usually irrational and

always involuntary, I was able to propound the

solution of this important problem; how it was that

beliefs which no reason could justify were admitted
without difficulty by the most enlightened spirits of

all ages.
The solution of the historical difficulties

which had so long been sought was thenceforth
obvious. I arrived at the conclusion that beside the

rational logic which conditions thought, and was
formerly regarded as our sole guide, there exist

very different forms of logic: affective logic,
collective logic, and mystic logic, which usually

overrule the reason and engender the generative

impulses of our conduct.

This fact well established, it seemed to me

evident that if a great number of historical events

are often uncomprehended, it is because we seek to
interpret them in the light of a logic which in reality

has very little influence upon their genesis.

All these researches, which are here
summed up in a few lines, demanded long years for

their accomplishment. Despairing of completing

them, I abandoned them more than once to return

to those labours of the laboratory in which one is
always sure of skirting the truth and of acquiring

fragments at least of certitude.
But while it is very interesting to explore the

world of material phenomena, it is still more so to
decipher men, for which reason I have always been

led back to psychology.
Certain principles deduced from my

researches appearing likely to prove fruitful, I
resolved to apply them to the study of concrete

instances, and was thus led to deal with the

Psychology of Revolutions--notably that of the

French Revolution.

Proceeding in the analysis of our great

Revolution, the greater part of the opinions
determined by the reading of books deserted me

one by one, although I had considered them

unshakable.
To explain this period we must consider it as

a whole, as many historians have done. It is

composed of phenomena simultaneous but

independent of one another.
Each of its phases reveals events

engendered by psychological laws working with the
regularity of clockwork. The actors in this great

drama seem to move like the characters of a
previously determined drama. Each says what he

must say, acts as he is bound to act.
To be sure, the actors in the revolutionary

drama differed from those of a written drama in that
they had not studied their parts, but these were

dictated by invisible forces.

Precisely because they were subjected to

the inevitable progression of logics

incomprehensible to them we see them as greatly

astonished by the events of which they were the
heroes as are we ourselves. Never did they suspect

the invisible powers which forced them to act. They

were the masters neither of their fury nor their
weakness. They spoke in the name of reason,

pretending to be guided by reason, but in reality it

was by no means reason that impelled them.

``The decisions for which we are so greatly
reproached,'' wrote Billaud-Varenne, ``were more

often than otherwise not intended or desired by us
two days or even one day beforehand: the crisis

alone evoked them.''
Not that we must consider the events of the

Revolution as dominated by an imperious fatality.
The readers of our works will know that we

recognise in the man of superior qualities the role of
averting fatalities. But he can dissociate himself

only from a few of such, and is often powerless

before the sequence of events which even at their

origin could scarcely be ruled. The scientist knows

how to destroy the microbe before it has time to

act, but he knows himself powerless to prevent the
evolution of the resulting malady.

When any question gives rise to violently

contradictory opinions we may be sure that it
belongs to the province of beliefs and not to that of

knowledge.

We have shown in a preceding work that

belief, of unconscious origin and independent of all
reason, can never be influenced by reason.

The Revolution, the work of believers, has
seldom been judged by any but believers.

Execrated by some and praised by others, it has
remained one of those dogmas which are accepted

or rejected as a whole, without the intervention of
rational logic.

Although in its beginnings a religious or
political revolution may very well be supported by

rational elements, it is developed only by the aid of

mystic and affective elements which are absolutely

foreign to reason.

The historians who have judged the events

of the French Revolution in the name of rational
logic could not comprehend them, since this form of

logic did not dictate them. As the actors of these

events themselves understood them but ill, we shall
not be far from the truth in saying that our

Revolution was a phenomenon equally

misunderstood by those who caused it and by those

who have described it. At no period of history did
men so little grasp the present, so greatly ignore

the past, and so poorly divine the future.
. . . The power of the Revolution did not

reside in the principles--which for that matter were
anything but novel--which it sought to propagate,

nor in the institutions which it sought to found. The
people cares very little for institutions and even less

for doctrines. That the Revolution was potent
indeed, that it made France accept the violence, the

murders, the ruin and the horror of a frightful civil

war, that finally it defended itself victoriously

against a Europe in arms, was due to the fact that it

had founded not a new system of government but a

new religion.
Now history shows us how irresistible is the

might of a strong belief. Invincible Rome herself

had to bow before the armies of nomad shepherds
illuminated by the faith of Mahommed. For the

same reason the kings of Europe could not resist the

tatterdemalion soldiers of the Convention. Like all

apostles, they were ready to immolate themselves
in the sole end of propagating their beliefs, which

according to their dream were to renew the world.
The religion thus founded had the force of

other religions, if not their duration. Yet it did not
perish without leaving indelible traces, and its

influence is active still.
We shall not consider the Revolution as a

clean sweep in history, as its apostles believed it.
We know that to demonstrate their intention of

creating a world distinct from the old they initiated a

new era and professed to break entirely with all

vestiges of the past.

But the past never dies. It is even more

truly within us than without us. Against their will
the reformers of the Revolution remained saturated

with the past, and could only continue, under other

names, the traditions of the monarchy, even
exaggerating the autocracy and centralisation of the

old system. Tocqueville had no difficulty in proving

that the Revolution did little but overturn that which

was about to fall.
If in reality the Revolution destroyed but

little it favoured the fruition of certain ideas which
continued thenceforth to develop.

The fraternity and liberty which it
proclaimed never greatly seduced the peoples, but

equality became their gospel: the pivot of socialism
and of the entire evolution of modern democratic

ideas. We may therefore say that the Revolution
did not end with the advent of the Empire, nor with

the successive restorations which followed it.

Secretly or in the light of day it has slowly unrolled

itself and still affects men's minds.

The study of the French Revolution to which

a great part of this book is devoted will perhaps
deprive the reader of more than one illusion, by

proving to him that the books which recount the

history of the Revolution contain in reality a mass of
legends very remote from reality.

These legends will doubtless retain more life

than history itself. Do not regret this too greatly. It

may interest a few philosophers to know the truth,
but the peoples will always prefer dreams.

Synthetising their ideal, such dreams will always
constitute powerful motives of action. One would

lose courage were it not sustained by false ideas,
said Fontenelle. Joan of Arc, the Giants of the

Convention, the Imperial epic--all these dazzling
images of the past will always remain sources of

hope in the gloomy hours that follow defeat. They
form part of that patrimony of illusions left us by our

fathers, whose power is often greater than that of

reality. The dream, the ideal, the legend--in a

word, the unreal--it is that which shapes history.


PART I

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS OF

REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS


BOOK I GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

OF REVOLUTIONS


CHAPTER I SCIENTIFIC AND POLITICAL

REVOLUTIONS
1. Classification of Revolutions.

We generally apply the term revolution to
sudden political changes, but the expression may be

employed to denote all sudden transformations, or
transformations apparently sudden, whether of

beliefs, ideas, or doctrines.
We have considered elsewhere the part

played by the rational, affective, and mystic factors
in the genesis of the opinions and beliefs which

determine conduct. We need not therefore return to

the subject here.

A revolution may finally become a belief, but

it often commences under the action of perfectly

rational motives: the suppression of crying abuses,

of a detested despotic government, or an unpopular

sovereign, &c.
Although the origin of a revolution may be
perfectly rational, we must not forget that the

reasons invoked in preparing for it do not influence

the crowd until they have been transformed into

sentiments. Rational logic can point to the abuses
to be destroyed, but to move the multitude its

hopes must be awakened. This can only be effected
by the action of the affective and mystic elements

which give man the power to act. At the time of the
French Revolution, for example, rational logic, in the

hands of the philosophers, demonstrated the
inconveniences of the ancien regime, and excited

the desire to change it. Mystic logic inspired belief
in the virtues of a society created in all its members

according to certain principles. Affective logic

unchained the passions confined by the bonds of

ages and led to the worst excesses. Collective logic

ruled the clubs and the Assemblies and impelled

their members to actions which neither rational nor
affective nor mystic logic would ever have caused

them to commit.
Whatever its origin, a revolution is not
productive of results until it has sunk into the soul of

the multitude. Then events acquire special forms

resulting from the peculiar psychology of crowds.

Popular movements for this reason have
characteristics so pronounced that the description of

one will enable us to comprehend the others.
The multitude is, therefore, the agent of a

revolution; but not its point of departure. The
crowd represents an amorphous being which can do

nothing, and will nothing, without a head to lead it.
It will quickly exceed the impulse once received, but

it never creates it.
The sudden political revolutions which strike

the historian most forcibly are often the least

important. The great revolutions are those of

manners and thought. Changing the name of a

government does not transform the mentality of a

people. To overthrow the institutions of a people is
not to re-shape its soul.

The true revolutions, those which transform

the destinies of the peoples, are most frequently
accomplished so slowly that the historians can

hardly point to their beginnings. The term evolution

is, therefore, far more appropriate than revolution.

The various elements we have enumerated
as entering into the genesis of the majority of

revolutions will not suffice to classify them.
Considering only the designed object, we will divide

them into scientific revolutions, political revolutions,
and religious revolutions.

2. Scientific Revolutions.
Scientific revolutions are by far the most

important. Although they attract but little attention,
they are often fraught with remote consequences,

such as are not engendered by political revolutions.

We will therefore put them first, although we cannot

study them here.

For instance, if our conceptions of the

universe have profoundly changed since the time of
the Revolution, it is because astronomical

discoveries and the application of experimental

methods have revolutionised them, by
demonstrating that phenomena, instead of being

conditioned by the caprices of the gods, are ruled by

invariable laws.

Such revolutions are fittingly spoken of as
evolution, on account of their slowness. But there

are others which, although of the same order,
deserve the name of revolution by reason of their

rapidity: we may instance the theories of Darwin,
overthrowing the whole science of biology in a few

years; the discoveries of Pasteur, which
revolutionised medicine during the lifetime of their

author; and the theory of the dissociation of matter,
proving that the atom, formerly supposed to be

eternal, is not immune from the laws which

condemn all the elements of the universe to decline

and perish.

These scientific revolutions in the domain of

ideas are purely intellectual. Our sentiments and
beliefs do not affect them. Men submit to them

without discussing them. Their results being

controllable by experience, they escape all criticism.
3. Political Revolutions.
Beneath and very remote from these

scientific revolutions, which generate the progress of

civilisations, are the religious and political
revolutions, which have no kinship with them. While

scientific revolutions derive solely from rational
elements, political and religious beliefs are sustained

almost exclusively by affective and mystic factors.
Reason plays only a feeble part in their genesis.

I insisted at some length in my book
Opinions and Beliefs on the affective and mystic

origin of beliefs, showing that a political or religious
belief constitutes an act of faith elaborated in

unconsciousness, over which, in spite of all

appearances, reason has no hold. I also showed

that belief often reaches such a degree of intensity

that nothing can be opposed to it. The man

hypnotised by his faith becomes an Apostle, ready
to sacrifice his interests, his happiness, and even his

life for the triumph of his faith. The absurdity of his

belief matters little; for him it is a burning reality.
Certitudes of mystic origin possess the marvellous

power of entire domination over thought, and can

only be affected by time.

By the very fact that it is regarded as an
absolute truth a belief necessarily becomes

intolerant. This explains the violence, hatred, and
persecution which were the habitual

accompaniments of the great political and religious
revolutions, notably of the Reformation and the

French Revolution.
Certain periods of French history remain

incomprehensible if we forget the affective and
mystic origin of beliefs, their necessary intolerance,

the impossibility of reconciling them when they

come into mutual contact, and, finally, the power

conferred by mystic beliefs upon the sentiments

which place themselves at their service.

The foregoing conceptions are too novel as
yet to have modified the mentality of the historians.

They will continue to attempt to explain, by means

of rational logic, a host of phenomena which are
foreign to it.
Events such as the Reformation, which

overwhelmed France for a period of fifty years, were

in no wise determined by rational influences. Yet
rational influences are always invoked in

explanation, even in the most recent works. Thus,
in the General History of Messrs. Lavisse and

Rambaud, we read the following explanation of the
Reformation:--

`Ìt was a spontaneous movement, born
here and there amidst the people, from the reading

of the Gospels and the free individual reflections
which were suggested to simple persons by an

extremely pious conscience and a very bold

reasoning power.''

Contrary to the assertion of these historians,

we may say with certainty, in the first place, that

such movements are never spontaneous, and
secondly, that reason takes no part in their

elaboration.
The force of the political and religious beliefs
which have moved the world resides precisely in the

fact that, being born of affective and mystic

elements, they are neither created nor directed by

reason.
Political or religious beliefs have a common

origin and obey the same laws. They are formed
not with the aid of reason, but more often contrary

to all reason. Buddhism, Islamism, the
Reformation, Jacobinism, Socialism, &c., seem very

different forms of thought. Yet they have identical
affective and mystic bases, and obey a logic that

has no affinity with rational logic.
Political revolutions may result from beliefs

established in the minds of men, but many other

causes produce them. The word discontent sums

them up. As soon as discontent is generalised a

party is formed which often becomes strong enough

to struggle against the Government.
Discontent must generally have been

accumulating for a long time in order to produce its

effects. For this reason a revolution does not
always represent a phenomenon in process of

termination followed by another which is

commencing but rather a continuous phenomenon,

having somewhat accelerated its evolution. All the
modern revolutions, however, have been abrupt

movements, entailing the instantaneous overthrow
of governments. Such, for example, were the

Brazilian, Portuguese, Turkish, and Chinese
revolutions.

To the contrary of what might be supposed,
the very conservative peoples are addicted to the

most violent revolutions. Being conservative, they
are not able to evolve slowly, or to adapt

themselves to variations of environment, so that

when the discrepancy becomes too extreme they

are bound to adapt themselves suddenly. This

sudden evolution constitutes a revolution.

Peoples able to adapt themselves
progressively do not always escape revolution. It

was only by means of a revolution that the English,

in 1688, were able to terminate the struggle which
had dragged on for a century between the

monarchy, which sought to make itself absolute,

and the nation, which claimed the right to govern

itself through the medium of its representatives.
The great revolutions have usually

commenced from the top, not from the bottom; but
once the people is unchained it is to the people that

revolution owes its might.
It is obvious that revolutions have never

taken place, and will never take place, save with the
aid of an important fraction of the army. Royalty

did not disappear in France on the day when Louis
XVI. was guillotined, but at the precise moment

when his mutinous troops refused to defend him.

It is more particularly by mental contagion

that armies become disaffected, being indifferent

enough at heart to the established order of things.

As soon as the coalition of a few officers had
succeeded in overthrowing the Turkish Government

the Greek officers thought to imitate them and to

change their government, although there was no
analogy between the two regimes.

A military movement may overthrow a

government--and in the Spanish republics the

Government is hardly ever destroyed by any other
means--but if the revolution is to be productive of

great results it must always be based upon general
discontent and general hopes.

Unless it is universal and excessive,
discontent alone is not sufficient to bring about a

revolution. It is easy to lead a handful of men to
pillage, destroy, and massacre, but to raise a whole

people, or any great portion of that people, calls for
the continuous or repeated action of leaders. These

exaggerate the discontent; they persuade the

discontented that the government is the sole cause

of all the trouble, especially of the prevailing dearth,

and assure men that the new system proposed by

them will engender an age of felicity. These ideas
germinate, propagating themselves by suggestion

and contagion, and the moment arrives when the

revolution is ripe.
In this fashion the Christian Revolution and

the French Revolution were prepared. That the

latter was effected in a few years, while the first

required many, was due to the fact that the French
Revolution promptly had an armed force at its

disposal, while Christianity was long in winning
material power. In the beginning its only adepts

were the lowly, the poor, and the slaves, filled with
enthusiasm by the prospect of seeing their

miserable life transformed into an eternity of
delight. By a phenomenon of contagion from below,

of which history affords us more than one example,
the doctrine finally invaded the upper strata of the

nation, but it was a long time before an emperor

considered the new faith sufficiently widespread to

be adopted as the official religion.

4. The Results of Political Revolutions.

When a political party is triumphant it
naturally seeks to organise society in accordance

with its interests. The organisation will differ

accordingly as the revolution has been effected by
the soldiers, the Radicals, or the Conservatives, &c.

The new laws and institutions will depend on

the interests of the triumphant party and of the

classes which have assisted it--the clergy for
instance.

If the revolution has triumphed only after a
violent struggle, as was the case with the French

Revolution, the victors will reject at one sweep the
whole arsenal of the old law. The supporters of the

fallen regime will be persecuted, exiled, or
exterminated.

The maximum of violence in these
persecutions is attained when the triumphant party

is defending a belief in addition to its material

interests. Then the conquered need hope for no

pity. Thus may be explained the expulsion of the

Moors from Spain, the autodafes of the Inquisition,

the executions of the Convention, and the recent
laws against the religious congregations in France.

The absolute power which is assumed by the

victors leads them sometimes to extreme measures,
such as the Convention's decree that gold was to be

replaced by paper, that goods were to be sold at

determined prices, &c. Very soon it runs up against

a wall of unavoidable necessities, which turn opinion
against its tyranny, and finally leave it defenceless

before attack, as befell at the end of the French
Revolution. The same thing happened recently to a

Socialist Australian ministry composed almost
exclusively of working-men. It enacted laws so

absurd, and accorded such privileges to the trade
unions, that public opinion rebelled against it so

unanimously that in three months it was
overthrown.

But the cases we have considered are

exceptional. The majority of revolutions have been

accomplished in order to place a new sovereign in

power. Now this sovereign knows very well that the

first condition of maintaining his power consists in
not too exclusively favouring a single class, but in

seeking to conciliate all. To do this he will establish

a sort of equilibrium between them, so as not to be
dominated by any one of these classes. To allow

one class to become predominant is to condemn

himself presently to accept that class as his master.

This law is one of the most certain of political
psychology. The kings of France understood it very

well when they struggled so energetically against
the encroachments first of the nobility and then of

the clergy. If they had not done so their fate would
have been that of the German Emperors of the

Middle Ages, who, excommunicated by the Pope,
were reduced, like Henry IV. at Canossa, to make a

pilgrimage and humbly to sue for the Pope's
forgiveness.

This same law has continually been verified

during the course of history. When at the end of

the Roman Empire the military caste became

preponderant, the emperors depended entirely upon

their soldiers, who appointed and deposed them at
will.

It was therefore a great advantage for

France that she was so long governed by a monarch
almost absolute, supposed to hold his power by

divine right, and surrounded therefore by a

considerable prestige. Without such an authority he

could have controlled neither the feudal nobility, nor
the clergy, nor the parliaments. If Poland, towards

the end of the sixteenth century, had also possessed
an absolute and respected monarchy, she would not

have descended the path of decadence which led to
her disappearance from the map of Europe.

We have shewn in this chapter that political
revolutions may be accompanied by important social

transformations. We shall soon see how slight are
these transformations compared to those produced

by religious revolutions.


CHAPTER II RELIGIOUS REVOLUTIONS

1. The importance of the study of Religious
Revolutions in respect of the comprehension of the

great Political Revolutions.
A portion of this work will be devoted to the

French Revolution. It was full of acts of violence
which naturally had their psychological causes.

These exceptional events will always fill us
with astonishment, and we even feel them to be

inexplicable. They become comprehensible,
however, if we consider that the French Revolution,

constituting a new religion, was bound to obey the
laws which condition the propagation of all beliefs.

Its fury and its hecatombs will then become

intelligible.

In studying the history of a great religious

revolution, that of the Reformation, we shall see

that a number of psychological elements which

figured therein were equally active during the
French Revolution. In both we observe the
insignificant bearing of the rational value of a belief

upon its propagation, the inefficacy of persecution,

the impossibility of tolerance between contrary
beliefs, and the violence and the desperate

struggles resulting from the conflict of different
faiths. We also observe the exploitation of a belief

by interests quite independent of that belief. Finally
we see that it is impossible to modify the

convictions of men without also modifying their
existence.

These phenomena verified, we shall see
plainly why the gospel of the Revolution was

propagated by the same methods as all the religious

gospels, notably that of Calvin. It could not have

been propagated otherwise.

But although there are close analogies

between the genesis of a religious revolution, such
as the Reformation, and that of a great political

revolution like our own, their remote consequences

are very different, which explains the difference of
duration which they display. In religious revolutions

no experience can reveal to the faithful that they

are deceived, since they would have to go to heaven

to make the discovery. In political revolutions
experience quickly demonstrates the error of a false

doctrine and forces men to abandon it.
Thus at the end of the Directory the

application of Jacobin beliefs had led France to such
a degree of ruin, poverty, and despair that the

wildest Jacobins themselves had to renounce their
system. Nothing survived of their theories except a

few principles which cannot be verified by
experience, such as the universal happiness which

equality should bestow upon humanity.

2. The beginnings of the Reformation and

its first disciples.
The Reformation was finally to exercise a

profound influence upon the sentiments and moral

ideas of a great proportion of mankind. Modest in

its beginnings, it was at first a simple struggle

against the abuses of the clergy, and, from a
practical point of view, a return to the prescriptions

of the Gospel. It never constituted, as has been

claimed, an aspiration towards freedom of thought.

Calvin was as intolerant as Robespierre, and all the
theorists of the age considered that the religion of

subjects must be that of the prince who governed
them. Indeed in every country where the

Reformation was established the sovereign replaced
the Pope of Rome, with the same rights and the

same powers.
In France, in default of publicity and means

of communication, the new faith spread slowly
enough at first. It was about 1520 that Luther

recruited a few adepts, and only towards 1535 was

the new belief sufficiently widespread for men to

consider it necessary to burn its disciples.

In conformity with a well-known

psychological law, these executions merely favoured
the propagation of the Reformation. Its first

followers included priests and magistrates, but were

principally obscure artisans. Their conversion was
effected almost exclusively by mental contagion and

suggestion.

As soon as a new belief extends itself, we

see grouped round it many persons who are
indifferent to the belief, but who find in it a pretext

or opportunity for gratifying their passions or their
greed. This phenomenon was observed at the time

of the Reformation in many countries, notably in
Germany and in England.

Luther having taught that the clergy had no
need of wealth, the German lords found many

merits in a faith which enabled them to seize upon
the goods of the Church. Henry VIII. enriched

himself by a similar operation. Sovereigns who

were often molested by the Pope could as a rule

only look favourably upon a doctrine which added

religious powers to their political powers and made

each of them a Pope. Far from diminishing the
absolutism of rulers, the Reformation only

exaggerated it.
3. Rational value of the doctrines of the
Reformation.
The Reformation overturned all Europe, and

came near to ruining France, of which it made a

battle-field for a period of fifty years. Never did a
cause so insignificant from the rational point of view

produce such great results.
Here is one of the innumerable proofs of the

fact that beliefs are propagated independently of all
reason. The theological doctrines which aroused

men's passions so violently, and notably those of
Calvin, are not even worthy of examination in the

light of rational logic.
Greatly concerned about his salvation,

having an excessive fear of the devil, which his

confessor was unable to allay, Luther sought the

surest means of pleasing God that he might avoid

Hell.
Having commenced by denying the Pope the
right to sell indulgences, he presently entirely

denied his authority, and that of the Church,

condemned religious ceremonies, confession, and
the worship of the saints, and declared that

Christians should have no rules of conduct other

than the Bible. He also considered that no one

could be saved without the grace of God.
This last theory, known as that of

predestination, was in Luther rather uncertain, but
was stated precisely by Calvin, who made it the very

foundation of a doctrine to which the majority of
Protestants are still subservient. According to him:

``From all eternity God has predestined certain
men to be burned and others to be saved.'' Why

this monstrous iniquity? Simply because `ìt is the
will of God.''

Thus according to Calvin, who for that

matter merely developed certain assertions of St.

Augustine, an all-powerful God would amuse Himself

by creating living beings simply in order to burn

them during all eternity, without paying any heed to
their acts or merits. It is marvellous that such

revolting insanity could for such a length of time

subjugate so many minds--marvellous that it does
so still.[1]

[1] The doctrine of predestination is still

taught in Protestant catechisms, as is proved by the
following passage extracted from the last edition of

an official catechism for which I sent to Edinburgh:
``By the decree of God, for the

manifestation of His glory, some men and angels
are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others

foreordained to everlasting death.
``These angels and men, thus

predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and
unchangeably designed; and their number is so

certain and definite that it cannot be either

increased or diminished.

``Those of mankind that are predestinated

unto life, God, before the foundation of the world

was laid, according to His eternal and immutable
purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure

of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting

glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without
any foresight of faith or good works, or

perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in

the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him

thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious
grace.

`Às God hath appointed the elect unto
glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free

purpose of His will, foreordained all the means
thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being

fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ; are
effectually called unto faith in Christ by His spirit

working in due season; are justified, adopted,
sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto

salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by

Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted,

sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.''

The psychology of Calvin is not without

affinity with that of Robespierre. Like the latter, the
master of the pure truth, he sent to death those

who would not accept his doctrines. God, he stated,

wishes ``that one should put aside all humanity
when it is a question of striving for his glory.'' The

case of Calvin and his disciples shows that matters

which rationally are the most contradictory become

perfectly reconciled in minds which are hypnotised
by a belief. In the eyes of rational logic, it seems

impossible to base a morality upon the theory of
predestination, since whatever they do men are sure

of being either saved or damned. However, Calvin
had no difficulty in erecting a most severe morality

upon this totally illogical basis. Considering
themselves the elect of God, his disciples were so

swollen by pride and the sense of their own dignity
that they felt obliged to serve as models in their

conduct.
4. Propagation of the Reformation.

The new faith was propagated not by

speech, still less by process of reasoning, but by the

mechanism described in our preceding work: that is,

by the influence of affirmation, repetition, mental

contagion, and prestige. At a much later date

revolutionary ideas were spread over France in the
same fashion.
Persecution, as we have already remarked,

only favoured this propagation. Each execution led

to fresh conversions, as was seen in the early years
of the Christian Church. Anne Dubourg,

Parliamentary councillor, condemned to be burned
alive, marched to the stake exhorting the crowd to

be converted. ``His constancy,'' says a witness,
``made more Protestants among the young men of

the colleges than the books of Calvin.''
To prevent the condemned from speaking to

the people their tongues were cut out before they
were burned. The horror of their sufferings was

increased by attaching the victims to an iron chain,

which enabled the executioners to plunge them into

the fire and withdraw them several times in

succession.
But nothing induced the Protestants to
retract, even the offer of an amnesty after they had

felt the fire.

In 1535 Francis I., forsaking his previous
tolerance, ordered six fires to be lighted

simultaneously in Paris. The Convention, as we

know, limited itself to a single guillotine in the same

city. It is probable that the sufferings of the victims
were not very excruciating; the insensibility of the

Christian martyrs had already been remarked.
Believers are hypnotised by their faith, and we know

to-day that certain forms of hypnotism engender
complete insensibility.

The new faith progressed rapidly. In 1560
there were two thousand reformed churches in

France, and many great lords, at first indifferent
enough, adhered to the new doctrine.

5. Conflict between different religious beliefs--

Impossibility of Tolerance.

I have already stated that intolerance is

always an accompaniment of powerful religious

beliefs. Political and religious revolutions furnish us

with numerous proofs of this fact, and show us also

that the mutual intolerance of sectaries of the same

religion is always much greater than that of the
defenders of remote and alien faiths, such as
Islamism and Christianity. In fact, if we consider

the faiths for whose sake France was so long rent

asunder, we shall find that they did not differ on any
but accessory points. Catholics and Protestants

adored exactly the same God, and only differed in
their manner of adoring Him. If reason had played

the smallest part in the elaboration of their belief, it
could easily have proved to them that it must be

quite indifferent to God whether He sees men adore
Him in this fashion or in that.

Reason being powerless to affect the brain
of the convinced, Protestants and Catholics

continued their ferocious conflicts. All the efforts of

their sovereigns to reconcile them were in vain.

Catherine de Medicis, seeing the party of the

Reformed Church increasing day by day in spite of

persecution, and attracting a considerable number
of nobles and magistrates, thought to disarm them

by convoking at Poissy, in 1561, an assembly of

bishops and pastors with the object of fusing the
two doctrines. Such an enterprise indicated that the

queen, despite her subtlety, knew nothing of the

laws of mystic logic. Not in all history can one cite

an example of a belief destroyed or reduced by
means of refutation. Catherine did not even know

that although toleration is with difficulty possible
between individuals, it is impossible between

collectivities. Her attempt failed completely. The
assembled theologians hurled texts and insults at

one another's heads, but no one was moved.
Catherine thought to succeed better in 1562 by

promulgating an edict according Protestants the
right to unite in the public celebration of their cult.

This tolerance, very admirable from a

philosophical point of view, but not at all wise from

the political standpoint, had no other result beyond

exasperating both parties. In the Midi, where the

Protestants were strongest, they persecuted the
Catholics, sought to convert them by violence, cut

their throats if they did not succeed, and sacked

their cathedrals. In the regions where the Catholics
were more numerous the Reformers suffered like

persecutions.

Such hostilities as these inevitably

engendered civil war. Thus arose the so-called
religious wars, which so long spilled the blood of

France. The cities were ravaged, the inhabitants
massacred, and the struggle rapidly assumed that

special quality of ferocity peculiar to religious or
political conflicts, which, at a later date, was to

reappear in the wars of La Vendee.
Old men, women, and children, all were

exterminated. A certain Baron d'Oppede, first
president of the Parliament of Aix, had already set

an example by killing 3,000 persons in the space of

ten days, with refinements of cruelty, and

destroying three cities and twenty-two villages.

Montluc, a worthy forerunner of Carrier, had the

Calvinists thrown living into the wells until these
were full. The Protestants were no more humane.

They did not spare even the Catholic churches, and

treated the tombs and statues just as the delegates
of the Convention were to treat the royal tombs of

Saint Denis.

Under the influence of these conflicts France

was progressively disintegrated, and at the end of
the reign of Henri III. was parcelled out into

veritable little confederated municipal republics,
forming so many sovereign states. The royal power

was vanishing. The States of Blois claimed to
dictate their wishes to Henri III., who had fled from

his capital. In 1577 the traveller Lippomano, who
traversed France, saw important cities-- Orleans,

Tours, Blois, Poitiers--entirely devastated, the
cathedrals and churches in ruins, and the tombs

shattered. This was almost the state of France at

the end of the Directory.

Among the events of this epoch, that which

has left the darkest memory, although it was not

perhaps the most murderous, was the massacre of
St. Bartholomew in 1572, ordered, according to the

historians, by Catherine de Medicis and Charles IX.

One does not require a very profound
knowledge of psychology to realise that no

sovereign could have ordered such an event. St.

Bartholomew's Day was not a royal but a popular

crime. Catherine de Medicis, believing her existence
and that of the king threatened by a plot directed by

four or five Protestant leaders then in Paris, sent
men to kill them in their houses, according to the

summary fashion of the time. The massacre which
followed is very well explained by M. Battifol in the

following terms:--
`Àt the report of what was afoot the

rumour immediately ran through Paris that the
Huguenots were being massacred; Catholic

gentlemen, soldiers of the guard, archers, men of

the people, in short all Paris, rushed into the streets,

arms in hand, in order to participate in the

execution, and the general massacre commenced,

to the sound of ferocious cries of `The Huguenots!
Kill, kill!' They were struck down, they were

drowned, they were hanged. All that were known as

heretics were so served. Two thousand persons
were killed in Paris.''

By contagion, the people of the provinces

imitated those of Paris, and six to eight thousand

Protestants were slain.
When time had somewhat cooled religious

passions, all the historians, even the Catholics,
spoke of St. Bartholomew's Day with indignation.

They thus showed how difficult it is for the mentality
of one epoch to understand that of another.

Far from being criticised, St. Bartholomew's
Day provoked an indescribable enthusiasm

throughout the whole of Catholic Europe.
Philip II. was delirious with joy when he

heard the news, and the King of France received

more congratulations than if he had won a great

battle.

But it was Pope Gregory XIII. above all who

manifested the keenest satisfaction. He had a
medal struck to commemorate the happy event,[2]

ordered joy-fires to be lit and cannon fired,

celebrated several masses, and sent for the painter
Vasari to depict on the walls of the Vatican the

principal scenes of carnage. Further, he sent to the

King of France an ambassador instructed to felicitate

that monarch upon his fine action. It is historical
details of this kind that enable us to comprehend

the mind of the believer. The Jacobins of the Terror
had a mentality very like that of Gregory XIII.

[2] The medal must have been distributed

pretty widely, for the cabinet of medals at the
Bibliotheque Nationale possesses three examples:

one in gold, one in silver, and one in copper. This
medal, reproduced by Bonnani in his Numism.

Pontific. (vol. i. p. 336), represents on one side

Gregory XIII., and on the other an angel striking

Huguenots with a sword. The exergue is

Ugonotorum strages, that is, Massacre of the

Huguenots. (The word strages may be translated
by carnage or massacre, a sense which it possesses

in Cicero and Livy; or again by disaster, ruin, a

sense attributed to it in Virgil and Tacitus.)
Naturally the Protestants were not

indifferent to such a hecatomb, and they made such

progress that in 1576 Henri III. was reduced to

granting them, by the Edict of Beaulieu, entire
liberty of worship, eight strong places, and, in the

Parliaments, Chambers composed half of Catholics
and half of Huguenots.

These forced concessions did not lead to
peace. A Catholic League was created, having the

Duke of Guise at its head, and the conflict
continued. But it could not last for ever. We know

how Henri IV. put an end to it, at least for a time,
by his abjuration in 1593, and by the Edict of

Nantes.
The struggle was quieted but not

terminated. Under Louis XIII. the Protestants were

still restless, and in 1627 Richelieu was obliged to

besiege La Rochelle, where 15,000 Protestants
perished. Afterwards, possessing more political

than religious feeling, the famous Cardinal proved

extremely tolerant toward the Reformers.
This tolerance could not last. Contrary

beliefs cannot come into contact without seeking to

annihilate each other, as soon as one feels capable

of dominating the other. Under Louis XIV. the
Protestants had become by far the weaker, and

were forced to renounce the struggle and live at
peace. Their number was then about 1,200,000,

and they possessed more than 600 churches, served
by about 700 pastors. The presence of these

heretics on French soil was intolerable to the
Catholic clergy, who endeavoured to persecute them

in various ways. As these persecutions had little
result, Louis XIV. resorted to dragonnading them in

1685, when many individuals perished, but without

further result. Under the pressure of the clergy,

notably of Bossuett, the Edict of Nantes was

revoked, and the Protestants were forced to accept

conversion or to leave France. This disastrous
emigration lasted a long time, and is said to have

cost France 400,000 inhabitants, men of notable

energy, since they had the courage to listen to their
conscience rather than their interests.

6. The results of Religious Revolutions.

If religious revolutions were judged only by
the gloomy story of the Reformation, we should be

forced to regard them as highly disastrous. But all
have not played a like part, the civilising influence of

certain among them being considerable.
By giving a people moral unity they greatly

increase its material power. We see this notably
when a new faith, brought by Mohammed,

transforms the petty and impotent tribes of Arabia
into a formidable nation.

Such a new religious belief does not merely

render a people homogeneous. It attains a result

that no philosophy, no code ever attained: it

sensibly transforms what is almost unchangeable,

the sentiments of a race.

We see this at the period when the most

powerful religious revolution recorded by history

overthrew paganism to substitute a God who came
from the plains of Galilee. The new ideal demanded

the renunciation of all the joys of existence in order

to acquire the eternal happiness of heaven. No

doubt such an ideal was readily accepted by the
poor, the enslaved, the disinherited who were

deprived of all the joys of life here below, to whom
an enchanting future was offered in exchange for a

life without hope. But the austere existence so
easily embraced by the poor was also embraced by

the rich. In this above all was the power of the new
faith manifested.

Not only did the Christian revolution
transform manners: it also exercised, for a space of

two thousand years, a preponderating influence

over civilisation. Directly a religious faith triumphs

all the elements of civilisation naturally adapt

themselves to it, so that civilisation is rapidly

transformed. Writers, artists and philosophers
merely symbolise, in their works, the ideas of the

new faith.
When any religious or political faith
whatsoever has triumphed, not only is reason

powerless to affect it, but it even finds motives

which impel it to interpret and so justify the faith in

question, and to strive to impose it upon others.
There were probably as many theologians and

orators in the time of Moloch, to prove the utility of
human sacrifices, as there were at other periods to

glorify the Inquisition, the massacre of St.
Bartholomew, and the hecatombs of the Terror.

We must not hope to see peoples possessed
by strong beliefs readily achieve tolerance. The only

people who attained to toleration in the ancient
world were the polytheists. The nations which

practise toleration at the present time are those that

might well be termed polytheistical, since, as in

England and America, they are divided into

innumerable sects. Under identical names they

really adore very different deities.
The multiplicity of beliefs which results in

such toleration finally results also in weakness. We

therefore come to a psychological problem not
hitherto resolved: how to possess a faith at once

powerful and tolerant.

The foregoing brief explanation reveals the

large part played by religious revolutions and the
power of beliefs. Despite their slight rational value

they shape history, and prevent the peoples from
remaining a mass of individuals without cohesion or

strength. Man has needed them at all times to
orientate his thought and guide his conduct. No

philosophy has as yet succeeded in replacing them.


CHAPTER III THE ACTION OF GOVERNMENTS

IN REVOLUTIONS
1. The feeble resistance of Governments in time

of Revolution.
Many modern nations--France, Spain, Italy,

Austria, Poland, Japan, Turkey, Portugal, &c.--have
known revolutions within the last century. These

were usually characterised by their instantaneous
quality and the facility with which the governments

attacked were overthrown.
The instantaneous nature of these

revolutions is explained by the rapidity of mental
contagion due to modern methods of publicity. The

slight resistance of the governments attacked is

more surprising. It implies a total inability to

comprehend and foresee created by a blind

confidence in their own strength.

The facility with which governments fall is

not however a new phenomenon. It has been
proved more than once, not only in autocratic
systems, which are always overturned by palace

conspiracies, but also in governments perfectly

instructed in the state of public opinion by the press
and their own agents.

Among these instantaneous downfalls one of
the most striking was that which followed the

Ordinances of Charles X. This monarch was, as we
know, overthrown in four days. His minister

Polignac had taken no measures of defence, and the
king was so confident of the tranquillity of Paris that

he had gone hunting. The army was not in the least
hostile, as in the reign of Louis XVI., but the troops,

badly officered, disbanded before the attacks of a

few insurgents.

The overthrow of Louis-Philippe was still

more typical, since it did not result from any

arbitrary action on the part of the sovereign. This
monarch was not surrounded by the hatred which

finally surrounded Charles X., and his fall was the

result of an insignificant riot which could easily have
been repressed.
Historians, who can hardly comprehend how

a solidly constituted government, supported by an

imposing army, can be overthrown by a few rioters,
naturally attributed the fall of Louis-Philippe to

deep-seated causes. In reality the incapacity of the
generals entrusted with his defence was the real

cause of his fall.
This case is one of the most instructive that

could be cited, and is worthy of a moment's
consideration. It has been perfectly investigated by

General Bonnal, in the light of the notes of an eye-
witness, General Elchingen. Thirty-six thousand

troops were then in Paris, but the weakness and

incapacity of their officers made it impossible to use

them. Contradictory orders were given, and finally

the troops were forbidden to fire on the people,

who, moreover--and nothing could have been more
dangerous--were permitted to mingle with the

troops. The riot succeeded without fighting and

forced the king to abdicate.
Applying to the preceding case our

knowledge of the psychology of crowds, General

Bonnal shows how easily the riot which overthrew

Louis-Philippe could have been controlled. He
proves, notably, that if the commanding officers had

not completely lost their heads quite a small body of
troops could have prevented the insurgents from

invading the Chamber of Deputies. This last,
composed of monarchists, would certainly have

proclaimed the Count of Paris under the regency of
his mother.

Similar phenomena were observable in the
revolutions of Spain and Portugal.

These facts show the role of petty accessory

circumstances in great events, and prove that one

must not speak too readily of the general laws of

history. Without the riot which overthrew Louis-

Philippe, we should probably have seen neither the
Republic of 1848, nor the Second Empire, nor

Sedan, nor the invasion, nor the loss of Alsace.

In the revolutions of which I have just been
speaking the army was of no assistance to the

government, but did not turn against it. It

sometimes happens otherwise. It is often the army

which effects the revolution, as in Turkey and
Portugal. The innumerable revolutions of the Latin

republics of America are effected by the army.
When a revolution is effected by an army

the new rulers naturally fall under its domination. I
have already recalled the fact that this was the case

at the end of the Roman Empire, when the
emperors were made and unmade by the soldiery.

The same thing has sometimes been
witnessed in modern times. The following extract

from a newspaper, with reference to the Greek

revolution, shows what becomes of a government

dominated by its army:--

`Òne day it was announced that eighty

officers of the navy would send in their resignations
if the government did not dismiss the leaders of

whom they complained. Another time it was the

agricultural labourers on a farm (metairie) belonging
to the Crown Prince who demanded the partition of

the soil among them. The navy protested against

the promotion promised to Colonel Zorbas. Colonel

Zorbas, after a week of discussion with Lieutenant
Typaldos, treated with the President of the Council

as one power with another. During this time the
Federation of the corporations abused the officers of

the navy. A deputy demanded that these officers
and their families should be treated as brigands.

When Commander Miaoulis fired on the rebels, the
sailors, who first of all had obeyed Typaldos,

returned to duty. This is no longer the harmonious
Greece of Pericles and Themistocles. It is a hideous

camp of Agramant.''
A revolution cannot be effected without the

assistance or at least the neutrality of the army, but

it often happens that the movement commences

without it. This was the case with the revolutions of
1830 and 1848, and that of 1870, which overthrew

the Empire after the humiliation of France by the

surrender of Sedan.
The majority of revolutions take place in the

capitals, and by means of contagion spread through

the country; but this is not a constant rule. We

know that during the French Revolution La Vendee,
Brittany, and the Midi revolted spontaneously

against Paris.
2. How the resistance of Governments may

overcome Revolution.
In the greater number of the revolutions

enumerated above, we have seen governments
perish by their weakness. As soon as they were

touched they fell.
The Russian Revolution proved that a

government which defends itself energetically may
finally triumph.

Never was revolution more menacing to the

government. After the disasters suffered in the

Orient, and the severities of a too oppressive

autocratic regime, all classes of society, including a

portion of the army and the fleet, had revolted. The

railways, posts, and telegraph services had struck,
so that communications between the various
portions of the vast empire were interrupted.

The rural class itself, forming the majority of

the nation, began to feel the influence of the
revolutionary propaganda. The lot of the peasants

was wretched. They were obliged, by the system of
the mir, to cultivate soil which they could not

acquire. The government resolved immediately to
conciliate this large class of peasants by turning

them into proprietors. Special laws forced the
landlords to sell the peasants a portion of their

lands, and banks intended to lend the buyers the
necessary purchase-money were created. The sums

lent were to be repaid by small annuities deducted

from the product of the sale of the crops.

Assured of the neutrality of the peasants,

the government could contend with the fanatics who

were burning the towns, throwing bombs among the
crowds, and waging a merciless warfare. All those

who could be taken were killed. Such extermination

is the only method discovered since the beginning of
the world by which a society can be protected

against the rebels who wish to destroy it.

The victorious government understood

moreover the necessity of satisfying the legitimate
claims of the enlightened portion of the nation. It

created a parliament instructed to prepare laws and
control expenditure.

The history of the Russian Revolution shows
us how a government, all of whose natural supports

have crumbled in succession, can, with wisdom and
firmness, triumph over the most formidable

obstacles. It has been very justly said that
governments are not overthrown, but that they

commit suicide.
3. Revolutions effected by Governments.--

Examples: China, Turkey, &c.

Governments almost invariably fight

revolutions; they hardly ever create them.

Representing the needs of the moment and general

opinion, they follow the reformers timidly; they do

not precede them. Sometimes, however, certain
governments have attempted those sudden reforms
which we know as revolutions. The stability or

instability of the national mind decrees the success

or failure of such attempts.
They succeed when the people on whom the

government seeks to impose new institutions is
composed of semi-barbarous tribes, without fixed

laws, without solid traditions; that is to say, without
a settled national mind. Such was the condition of

Russia in the days of Peter the Great. We know how
he sought to Europeanise the semi-Asiatic

populations by means of force.
Japan is another example of a revolution

effected by a government, but it was her machinery,

not her mind that was reformed.

It needs a very powerful autocrat, seconded

by a man of genius, to succeed, even partially, in

such a task. More often than not the reformer finds
that the whole people rises up against him. Then,

to the contrary of what befalls in an ordinary

revolution, the autocrat is revolutionary and the
people is conservative. But an attentive study will

soon show you that the peoples are always

extremely conservative.

Failure is the rule with these attempts.
Whether effected by the upper classes or the lower,

revolutions do not change the souls of peoples that
have been a long time established. They only

change those things that are worn by time and
ready to fall.

China is at the present time making a very
interesting but impossible experiment, in seeking,

by means of the government, suddenly to renew the
institutions of the country. The revolution which

overturned the dynasty of her ancient sovereigns

was the indirect consequence of the discontent

provoked by reforms which the government had

sought to impose with a view to ameliorating the

condition of China. The suppression of opium and
gaming, the reform of the army, and the creation of

schools, involved an increase of taxation which, as

well as the reforms themselves, greatly indisposed
the general opinion.

A few cultured Chinese educated in the

schools of Europe profited by this discontent to raise

the people and proclaim a republic, an institution of
which the Chinese could have had no conception.

It surely cannot long survive, for the
impulse which has given birth to it is not a

movement of progress, but of reaction. The word
republic, to the Chinaman intellectualised by his

European education, is simply synonymous with the
rejection of the yoke of laws, rules, and long-

established restraints. Cutting off his pigtail,
covering his head with a cap, and calling himself a

Republican, the young Chinaman thinks to give the

rein to all his instincts. This is more or less the idea

of a republic that a large part of the French people

entertained at the time of the great Revolution.

China will soon discover the fate that awaits
a society deprived of the armour slowly wrought by

the past. After a few years of bloody anarchy it will

be necessary to establish a power whose tyranny
will inevitably be far severer than that which was

overthrown. Science has not yet discovered the

magic ring capable of saving a society without

discipline. There is no need to impose discipline
when it has become hereditary, but when the

primitive instincts have been allowed to destroy the
barriers painfully erected by slow ancestral labours,

they cannot be reconstituted save by an energetic
tyranny.

As a proof of these assertions we may
instance an experiment analogous to that

undertaken by China; that recently attempted by
Turkey. A few years ago young men instructed in

European schools and full of good intentions

succeeded, with the aid of a number of officers, in

overthrowing a Sultan whose tyranny seemed

insupportable. Having acquired our robust Latin

faith in the magic power of formulae, they thought
they could establish the representative system in a

country half-civilised, profoundly divided by religious

hatred, and peopled by divers races.
The attempt has not prospered hitherto.

The authors of the reformation had to learn that

despite their liberalism they were forced to govern

by methods very like those employed by the
government overthrown. They could neither

prevent summary executions nor wholesale
massacres of Christians, nor could they remedy a

single abuse.
It would be unjust to reproach them. What

in truth could they have done to change a people
whose traditions have been fixed so long, whose

religious passions are so intense, and whose
Mohammedans, although in the minority,

legitimately claim to govern the sacred city of their

faith according to their code? How prevent Islam

from remaining the State religion in a country where

civil law and religious law are not yet plainly

separated, and where faith in the Koran is the only
tie by which the idea of nationality can be

maintained?
It was difficult to destroy such a state of
affairs, so that we were bound to see the re-

establishment of an autocratic organisation with an

appearance of constitutionalism--that is to say,

practically the old system once again. Such
attempts afford a good example of the fact that a

people cannot choose its institutions until it has
transformed its mind.

4. Social elements which survive the changes of
Government after Revolution.

What we shall say later on as to the stable
foundation of the national soul will enable us to

appreciate the force of systems of government that
have been long established, such as ancient

monarchies. A monarch may easily be overthrown
by conspirators, but these latter are powerless

against the principles which the monarch

represents. Napoleon at his fall was replaced not by

his natural heir, but by the heir of kings. The latter

incarnated an ancient principle, while the son of the

Emperor personified ideas that were as yet

imperfectly established in men's minds.
For the same reason a minister, however
able, however great the services he has rendered to

his country, can very rarely overthrow his

Sovereign. Bismarck himself could not have done
so. This great minister had single-handed created

the unity of Germany, yet his master had only to
touch him with his finger and he vanished. A man is

as nothing before a principle supported by opinion.
But even when, for various reasons, the

principle incarnated by a government is annihilated
with that government, as happened at the time of

the French Revolution, all the elements of social
organisation do not perish at the same time.

If we knew nothing of France but the

disturbances of the last hundred years and more we

might suppose the country to live in a state of

profound anarchy. Now her economic, industrial,

and even her political life manifests, on the
contrary, a continuity that seems to be independent

of all revolutions and governments.

The fact is that beside the great events of
which history treats are the little facts of daily life

which the books neglect to tell. They are ruled by

imperious necessities which halt for no man. Their

total mass forms the real framework of the life of
the people.

While the study of great events shows us
that the nominal government of France has been

frequently changed in the space of a century, an
examination of the little daily events will prove, on

the contrary, that her real government has been
little altered.

Who in truth are the real rulers of a people?
Kings and ministers, no doubt, in the great crises of

national life, but they play no part whatever in the

little realities which make up the life of every day.

The real directing forces of a country are the

administrations, composed of impersonal elements

which are never affected by the changes of
government. Conservative of traditions, they are

anonymous and lasting, and constitute an occult

power before which all others must eventually bow.
Their action has even increased to such a degree

that, as we shall presently show, there is a danger

that they may form an anonymous State more

powerful than the official State. France has thus
come to be governed by heads of departments and

government clerks. The more we study the history
of revolutions the more we discover that they

change practically nothing but the label. To create a
revolution is easy, but to change the soul of a

people is difficult indeed.


CHAPTER IV THE PART PLAYED BY THE

PEOPLE IN REVOLUTIONS
1. The stability and malleability of the national

mind.
The knowledge of a people at any given

moment of its history involves an understanding of
its environment and above all of its past.

Theoretically one may deny that past, as did the
men of the Revolution, as many men of the present

day have done, but its influence remains
indestructible.

In the past, built up by slow accumulations
of centuries, was formed the aggregation of

thoughts, sentiments, traditions, and prejudices

constituting the national mind which makes the

strength of a race. Without it no progress is

possible. Each generation would necessitate a fresh

beginning.
The aggregate composing the soul of a
people is solidly established only if it possesses a
certain rigidity, but this rigidity must not pass a

certain limit, or there would be no such thing as

malleability.
Without rigidity the ancestral soul would

have no fixity, and without malleability it could not
adapt itself to the changes of environment resulting

from the progress of civilization.
Excessive malleability of the national mind

impels a people to incessant revolutions. Excess of
rigidity leads it to decadence. Living species, like

the races of humanity, disappear when, too fixedly
established by a long past, they become incapable

of adapting themselves to new conditions of

existence.

Few peoples have succeeded in effecting a

just equilibrium between these two contrary

qualities of stability and malleability. The Romans in
antiquity and the English in modern times may be

cited among those who have best attained it.

The peoples whose mind is most fixed and
established often effect the most violent revolutions.

Not having succeeded in evolving progressively, in

adapting themselves to changes of environment,

they are forced to adapt themselves violently when
such adaptation becomes indispensable.

Stability is only acquired very slowly. The
history of a race is above all the story of its long

efforts to establish its mind. So long as it has not
succeeded it forms a horde of barbarians without

cohesion and strength. After the invasions of the
end of the Roman Empire France took several

centuries to form a national soul.
She finally achieved one; but in the course

of centuries this soul finally became too rigid. With

a little more malleability, the ancient monarchy

would have been slowly transformed as it was

elsewhere, and we should have avoided, together

with the Revolution and its consequences, the heavy
task of remaking a national soul.

The preceding considerations show us the

part of race in the genesis of revolutions, and
explain why the same revolutions will produce such

different effects in different countries; why, for

example, the ideas of the French Revolution,

welcomed with such enthusiasm by some peoples,
were rejected by others.

Certainly England, although a very stable
country, has suffered two revolutions and slain a

king; but the mould of her mental armour was at
once stable enough to retain the acquisitions of the

past and malleable enough to modify them only
within the necessary limits. Never did England

dream, as did the men of the French Revolution, of
destroying the ancestral heritage in order to erect a

new society in the name of reason.

``While the Frenchman,'' writes M. A. Sorel,

``despised his government, detested his clergy,

hated the nobility, and revolted against the laws,

the Englishman was proud of his religion, his
constitution, his aristocracy, his House of Lords.

These were like so many towers of the formidable

Bastille in which he entrenched himself, under the
British standard, to judge Europe and cover her with

contempt. He admitted that the command was

disputed inside the fort, but no stranger must

approach.''
The influence of race in the destiny of the

peoples appears plainly in the history of the
perpetual revolutions of the Spanish republics of

South America. Composed of half-castes, that is to
say, of individuals whose diverse heredities have

dissociated their ancestral characteristics, these
populations have no national soul and therefore no

stability. A people of half-castes is always
ungovernable.

If we would learn more of the differences of

political capacity which the racial factor creates we

must examine the same nation as governed by two

races successively.
The event is not rare in history. It has been
manifested in a striking manner of late in Cuba and

the Philippines, which passed suddenly from the rule

of Spain to that of the United States.
We know in what anarchy and poverty Cuba

existed under Spanish rule; we know, too, to what a

degree of prosperity the island was brought in a few

years when it fell into the hands of the United
States.

The same experience was repeated in the
Philippines, which for centuries had been governed

by Spain. Finally the country was no more than a
vast jungle, the home of epidemics of every kind,

where a miserable population vegetated without
commerce or industry. After a few years of

American rule the country was entirely transformed:
malaria, yellow fever, plague and cholera had

entirely disappeared. The swamps were drained;

the country was covered with railways, factories and

schools. In thirteen years the mortality was

reduced by two-thirds.
It is to such examples that we must refer
the theorist who has not yet grasped the profound

significance of the word race, and how far the

ancestral soul of a people rules over its destiny.
2. How the people regards Revolution.

The part of the people has been the same

in all revolutions. It is never the people that

conceives them nor directs them. Its activity is
released by means of leaders.

Only when the direct interests of the people
are involved do we see, as recently in Champagne,

any fraction of the people rising spontaneously. A
movement thus localised constitutes a mere riot.

Revolution is easy when the leaders are very
influential. Of this Portugal and Brazil have recently

furnished proofs. But new ideas penetrate the
people very slowly indeed. Generally it accepts a

revolution without knowing why, and when by

chance it does succeed in understanding why, the

revolution is over long ago.

The people will create a revolution because

it is persuaded to do so, but it does not understand
very much of the ideas of its leaders; it interprets

them in its own fashion, and this fashion is by no

means that of the true authors of the revolution.
The French Revolution furnished a striking example

of this fact.

The Revolution of 1789 had as its real object

the substitution of the power of the nobility by that
of the bourgeoisie; that is, an old elite which had

become incapable was to be replaced by a new elite
which did possess capacity.

There was little question of the people in
this first phase of the Revolution. The sovereignty

of the people was proclaimed, but it amounted only
to the right of electing its representatives.

Extremely illiterate, not hoping, like the
middle classes, to ascend the social scale, not in any

way feeling itself the equal of the nobles, and not

aspiring ever to become their equal, the people had

views and interests very different to those of the

upper classes of society.

The struggles of the assembly with the royal
power led it to call for the intervention of the people

in these struggles. It intervened more and more,

and the bourgeois revolution rapidly became a
popular revolution.
An idea having no force of its own, and

acting only by virtue of possessing an affective and

mystic substratum which supports it, the theoretical
ideas of the bourgeoisie, before they could act on

the people, had to be transformed into a new and
very definite faith, springing from obvious practical

interests.
This transformation was rapidly effected

when the people heard the men envisaged by it as
the Government assuring it that it was the equal of

its former masters. It began to regard itself as a
victim, and proceeded to pillage, burn, and

massacre, imagining that in so doing it was

exercising a right.

The great strength of the revolutionary

principles was that they gave a free course to the

instincts of primitive barbarity which had been
restrained by the secular and inhibitory action of

environment, tradition, and law.

All the social bonds that formerly contained
the multitude were day by day dissolving, so that it

conceived a notion of unlimited power, and the joy

of seeing its ancient masters ferreted out and

despoiled. Having become the sovereign people,
were not all things permissible to it?

The motto of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, a
true manifestation of hope and faith at the

beginning of the Revolution, soon merely served to
cover a legal justification of the sentiments of

jealousy, cupidity, and hatred of superiors, the true
motives of crowds unrestrained by discipline. This is

why the Revolution so soon ended in disorder,
violence, and anarchy.

From the moment when the Revolution

descended from the middle to the lower classes of

society, it ceased to be a domination of the

instinctive by the rational, and became, on the

contrary, the effort of the instinctive to overpower
the rational.

This legal triumph of the atavistic instincts

was terrible. The whole effort of societies an effort
indispensable to their continued existence--had

always been to restrain, thanks to the power of

tradition, customs, and codes, certain natural

instincts which man has inherited from his primitive
animality. It is possible to dominate them--and the

more a people does overcome them the more
civilised it is--but they cannot be destroyed. The

influence of various exciting causes will readily
result in their reappearance.

This is why the liberation of popular
passions is so dangerous. The torrent, once

escaped from its bed, does not return until it has
spread devastation far and wide. ``Woe to him

who stirs up the dregs of a nation,'' said Rivarol at

the beginning of the Revolution. ``There is no age

of enlightenment for the populace.''

3. The supposed Part of the People during

Revolution.
The laws of the psychology of crowds show

us that the people never acts without leaders, and

that although it plays a considerable part in
revolutions by following and exaggerating the
impulses received, it never directs its own

movements.

In all political revolutions we discover the
action of leaders. They do not create the ideas

which serve as the basis of revolutions, but they
utilise them as a means of action. Ideas, leaders,

armies, and crowds constitute four elements which
all have their part to play in revolutions.

The crowd, roused by the leaders, acts
especially by means of its mass. Its action is

comparable to that of the shell which perforates an
armour-plate by the momentum of a force it did not

create. Rarely does the crowd understand anything

of the revolutions accomplished with its assistance.

It obediently follows its leaders without even trying

to find out what they want. It overthrew Charles X.

because of his Ordinances without having any idea
of the contents of the latter, and would have been

greatly embarrassed had it been asked at a later

date why it overthrew Louis-Philippe.
Deceived by appearances, many authors,

from Michelet to Aulard, have supposed that the

people effected our great Revolution.

``The principal actor,'' said Michelet, `ìs
the people.''

`Ìt is an error to say,'' writes M. Aulard,
``that the French Revolution was effected by a few

distinguished people or a few heroes. . . . I believe
that in the whole history of the period included

between 1789 and 1799 not a single person stands
out who led or shaped events: neither Louis XVI.

nor Mirabeau nor Danton nor Robespierre. Must we
say that it was the French people that was the real

hero of the French Revolution? Yes--provided we

see the French people not as a multitude but as a

number of organised groups.''

And in a recent work M. A. Cochin insists on

this conception of popular action.
`Ànd here is the wonder: Michelet is right.

In proportion as we know them better the facts

seem to consecrate the fiction: this crowd, without
chiefs and without laws, the very image of chaos,

did for five years govern and command, speak and

act, with a precision, a consistency, and an entirety

that were marvellous. Anarchy gave lessons in
order and discipline to the defeated party of order . .

. twenty-five millions of men, spread over an area of
30,000 square leagues, acted as one.''

Certainly if this simultaneous conduct of the
people had been spontaneous, as the author

supposes, it would have been marvellous. M. Aulard
himself understands very well the impossibilities of

such a phenomenon, for he is careful, in speaking of
the people, to say that he is speaking of groups, and

that these groups may have been guided by

leaders:--

`Ànd what, then, cemented the national

unity? Who saved this nation, attacked by the king

and rent by civil war? Was it Danton? Was it
Robespierre? Was it Carnot? Certainly these

individual men were of service: but unity was in fact

maintained and independence assured by the
grouping of the French into communes and popular

societies--people's clubs. It was the municipal and

Jacobin organisation of France that forced the

coalition of Europe to retreat. But in each group, if
we look more closely, there were two or three

individuals more capable than the rest, who,
whether leaders or led, executed decisions and had

the appearance of leaders, but who (if, for instance,
we read the proceedings of the people's clubs) seem

to us to have drawn their strength far more from
their group than from themselves.

M. Aulard's mistake consists in supposing
that all these groups were derived ``from a

spontaneous movement of fraternity and reason.''

France at that time was covered with thousands of

little clubs, receiving a single impulsion from the

great Jacobin Club of Paris, and obeying it with

perfect docility. This is what reality teaches us,
though the illusions of the Jacobins do not permit

them to accept the fact.[3]

[3] In the historical manuals which M.

Aulard has prepared for the use of classes in

collaboration with M. Debidour the role attributed to

the people as an entity is even more marked. We
see it intervening continually and spontaneously;

here are a few examples:--
The ``Day'' of June the 20th: ``The king

dismissed the Girondist members. The people of
Paris, indignant, rose spontaneously and invaded

the Tuileries.''
The ``Day'' of August 10th: ``The

Legislative Assembly dared not overthrow it; it was
the people of Paris, aided by the Federals of the

Departments, who effected this revolution at the

price of its blood.''

The conflict of the Girondists and the

Mountain: ``This discord in the face of the enemy

was dangerous. The people put an end to it on the
days of the 31st of May and the 2nd of June, 1793,

when it forced the Convention to expel the leaders

of the Gironde from its midst and to decree their
arrest.''

4. The Popular Entity and its Constituent

Elements.
In order to answer to certain theoretical

conceptions the people was erected into a mystic
entity, endowed with all the powers and all the

virtues, incessantly praised by the politicians, and
overwhelmed with flattery. We shall see what we

are to make of this conception of the part played by
the people in the French Revolution.

To the Jacobins of this epoch, as to those of
our own days, this popular entity constitutes a

superior personality possessing the attributes,
peculiar to divinities, of never having to answer for

its actions and never making a mistake. Its wishes

must be humbly acceded. The people may kill,

burn, ravage, commit the most frightful cruelties,

glorify its hero to-day and throw him into the gutter

to-morrow; it is all one; the politicians will not cease

to vaunt its virtues, its high wisdom, and to bow to
its every decision.[4]

[4] These pretensions do at least seem to be

growing untenable to the more advanced
republicans.

``The rage with the socialists'' writes M.
Clemenceau, `ìs to endow with all the virtues, as

though by a superhuman reason, the crowd whose
reason cannot be much to boast of.'' The famous

statesman might say more correctly that reason not
only cannot be prominent in the crowd but is

practically nonexistent.
Now in what does this entity really consist,

this mysterious fetich which revolutionists have

revered for more than a century?

It may be decomposed into two distinct

categories. The first includes the peasants, traders,

and workers of all sorts who need tranquillity and
order that they may exercise their calling. This

people forms the majority, but a majority which

never caused a revolution. Living in laborious
silence, it is ignored by the historians.

The second category, which plays a capital

part in all national disturbances, consists of a

subversive social residue dominated by a criminal
mentality. Degenerates of alcoholism and poverty,

thieves, beggars, destitute ``casuals,'' indifferent
workers without employment--these constitute the

dangerous bulk of the armies of insurrection.
The fear of punishment prevents many of

them from becoming criminals at ordinary times,
but they do become criminals as soon as they can

exercise their evil instincts without danger.
To this sinister substratum are due the

massacres which stain all revolutions.

It was this class which, guided by its

leaders, continually invaded the great revolutionary

Assemblies. These regiments of disorder had no

other ideal than that of massacre, pillage, and
incendiarism. Their indifference to theories and

principles was complete.

To the elements recruited from the lowest
dregs of the populace are added, by way of

contagion, a host of idle and indifferent persons who

are simply drawn into the movement. They shout

because there are men shouting, and revolt because
there is a revolt, without having the vaguest idea of

the cause of shouting or revolution. The suggestive
power of their environment absolutely hypnotises

them, and impels them to action.
These noisy and maleficent crowds, the

kernel of all insurrections, from antiquity to our own
times, are the only crowds known to the orator. To

the orator they are the sovereign people. As a
matter of fact this sovereign people is principally

composed of the lower populace of whom Thiers

said:--

``Since the time when Tacitus saw it

applaud the crimes of the emperors the vile

populace has not changed. These barbarians who
swarm at the bottom of societies are always ready

to stain the people with every crime, at the beck of

every power, and to the dishonour of every cause.''
At no period of history was the role of the

lowest elements of the population exercised in such

a lasting fashion as in the French Revolution.

The massacres began as soon as the beast
was unchained--that is, from 1789, long before the

Convention. They were carried out with all possible
refinements of cruelty. During the killing of

September the prisoners were slowly chopped to
bits by sabre- cuts in order to prolong their agonies

and amuse the spectators, who experienced the
greatest delight before the spectacle of the

convulsions of the victims and their shrieks of
agony.

Similar scenes were observed all over

France, even in the early days of the Revolution,

although the foreign war did not excuse them then,

nor any other pretext.

From March to September a whole series of
burnings, killings, and pillagings drenched all France

in blood. Taine cites one hundred and twenty such

cases. Rouen, Lyons, Strasbourg, &c., fell into the
power of the populace.

The Mayor of Troyes, his eyes destroyed by

blows of scissors, was murdered after hours of

suffering. The Colonel of Dragoons Belzuce was cut
to pieces while living. In many places the hearts of

the victims were torn out and carried about the
cities on the point of a pike.

Such is the behaviour of the base populace
so soon as imprudent hands have broken the

network of constraints which binds its ancestral
savagery. It meets with every indulgence because

it is in the interests of the politicians to flatter it.
But let us for a moment suppose the thousands of

beings who constitute it condensed into one single

being. The personality thus formed would appear as

a cruel and narrow and abominable monster, more

horrible than the bloodiest tyrants of history.

This impulsive and ferocious people has
always been easily dominated so soon as a strong

power has opposed it. If its violence is unlimited, so

is its servility. All the despotisms have had it for
their servant. The Caesars are certain of being

acclaimed by it, whether they are named Caligula,

Nero, Marat, Robespierre, or Boulanger.

Beside these destructive hordes whose
action during revolution is capital, there exists, as

we have already remarked, the mass of the true
people, which asks only the right to labour. It

sometimes benefits by revolutions, but never causes
them. The revolutionary theorists know little of it

and distrust it, aware of its traditional and
conservative basis. The resistant nucleus of a

country, it makes the strength and continuity of the
latter.

Extremely docile through fear, easily

influenced by its leaders, it will momentarily commit

every excess while under their influence, but the

ancestral inertia of the race will soon take charge

again, which is the reason why it so quickly tires of
revolution. Its traditional soul quickly incites it to

oppose itself to anarchy when the latter goes too

far. At such times it seeks the leader who will
restore order.
This people, resigned and peaceable, has

evidently no very lofty nor complicated political

conceptions. Its governmental ideal is always very
simple, is something very like dictatorship. This is

why, from the times of the Greeks to our own,
dictatorship has always followed anarchy. It

followed it after the first Revolution, when
Bonaparte was acclaimed, and again when, despite

opposition, four successive plebiscites raised Louis
Napoleon to the head of the republic, ratified his

coup d'etat, re-established the Empire, and in 1870,
before the war, approved of his rule.

Doubtless in these last instances the people

was deceived. But without the revolutionary

conspiracies which led to disorder, it would not have

been impelled to seek the means of escape

therefrom.
The facts recalled in this chapter must not

be forgotten if we wish fully to comprehend the

various roles of the people during revolution. Its
action is considerable, but very unlike that imagined

by the legends whose repetition alone constitutes

their vitality.


BOOK II THE FORMS OF MENTALITY

PREVALENT DURING REVOLUTION


CHAPTER I INDIVIDUAL VARIATIONS OF

CHARACTER IN TIME OF REVOLUTION
1. Transformations of Personality.

I have dwelt at length elsewhere upon a
certain theory of character, without which it is

absolutely impossible to understand divers
transformations or inconsistencies of conduct which

occur at certain moments, notably in time of
revolution. Here are the principal points of this

theory:
Every individual possesses, besides his

habitual mentality, which, when the environment

does not alter, is almost constant, various

possibilities of character which may be evoked by

passing events.

The people who surround us are the

creatures of certain circumstances, but not of all

circumstances. Our ego consists of the association

of innumerable cellular egos, the residues of
ancestral personalities. By their combination they

form an equilibrium which is fairly permanent when

the social environment does not vary. As soon as

this environment is considerably modified, as in
time of insurrection, this equilibrium is broken, and

the dissociated elements constitute, by a fresh
aggregation, a new personality, which is manifested

by ideas, feelings, and actions very different from
those formerly observed in the same individual.

Thus it is that during the Terror we see honest
bourgeois and peaceful magistrates who were noted

for their kindness turned into bloodthirsty fanatics.
Under the influence of environment the old

personality may therefore give place to one entirely

new. For this reason the actors in great religious

and political crises often seem of a different essence

to ourselves; yet they do not differ from us; the

repetition of the same events would bring back the
same men.

Napoleon perfectly understood these

possibilities of character when he said, in Saint
Helena:--
`Ìt is because I know just how great a part

chance plays in our political decisions, that I have

always been without prejudices, and very indulgent
as to the part men have taken during our

disturbances. . . . In time of revolution one can only
say what one has done; it would not be wise to say

that one could not have done otherwise. . . . Men
are difficult to understand if we want to be just. . . .

Do they know themselves? Do they account for
themselves very clearly? There are virtues and

vices of circumstance.''
When the normal personality has been

disaggregated under the influence of certain events,

how does the new personality form itself? By

several means, the most active of which is the

acquisition of a strong belief. This orientates all the

elements of the understanding, as the magnet
collects into regular curves the filings of a magnetic

metal.
Thus were formed the personalities
observed in times of great crises: the Crusades, the

Reformation, the Revolution notably.

At normal times the environment varies

little, so that as a rule we see only a single
personality in the individuals that surround us.

Sometimes, however, it happens that we observe
several, which in certain circumstances may replace

one another.
These personalities may be contradictory

and even inimical. This phenomenon, exceptional
under normal conditions, is considerably

accentuated in certain pathological conditions.
Morbid psychology has recorded several examples of

multiple personality in a single subject, such as the

cases cited by Morton Prince and Pierre Janet.

In all these variations of personality it is not

the intelligence which is modified, but the feelings,

whose association forms the character.
2. Elements of Character Predominant in Time

of Revolution.
During revolution we see several
sentiments developed which are commonly
repressed, but to which the destruction of social

constraints gives a free vent.

These constraints, consisting of the law,
morality, and tradition, are not always completely

broken. Some survive the upheaval and serve to
some extent to damp the explosion of dangerous

sentiments.
The most powerful of these restraints is the

soul of the race. This determines a manner of
seeing, feeling, and willing common to the majority

of the individuals of the same people; it constitutes
a hereditary custom, and nothing is more powerful

than the ties of custom.

This racial influence limits the variations of a

people and determines its destiny within certain

limits in spite of all superficial changes.

For example, to take only the instances of
history, it would seem that the mentality of France

must have varied enormously during a single

century. In a few years it passed from the
Revolution to Caesarism, returned to the monarchy,

effected another Revolution, and then summoned a

new Caesar. In reality only the outsides of things

had changed.
We cannot insist further here on the limits of

national variability, but must now consider the
influence of certain affective elements, whose

development during revolution contributes to modify
individual or collective personalities. In particular I

will mention hatred, fear, ambition, jealousy or
envy, vanity, and enthusiasm. We observe their

influence during several of the upheavals of history,
notably during the course of the French Revolution,

which will furnish us with most of our examples.

Hatred.--The hatred of persons, institutions,

and things which animated the men of the

Revolution is one of these affective phenomena

which are the more striking the more one studies
their psychology. They detested, not only their

enemies, but the members of their own party. `Ìf

one were to accept unreservedly,'' said a recent
writer, ``the judgments which they expressed of

one another, we should have to conclude that they

were all traitors and boasters, all incapable and

corrupt, all assassins or tyrants.'' We know with
what hatred, scarcely appeased by the death of

their enemies, men persecuted the Girondists,
Dantonists, Hebertists, Robespierrists, &c.

One of the chief causes of this feeling
resided in the fact that these furious sectaries, being

apostles in possession of the absolute verity, were
unable, like all believers, to tolerate the sight of

infidels. A mystic or sentimental certitude is always
accompanied by the need of forcing itself on others,

is never convinced, and does not shrink from

wholesale slaughter when it has the power to

commit it.

If the hatreds that divided the men of the

Revolution had been of rational origin they would
not have lasted long, but, arising from affective and

mystic factors, men could neither forget nor forgive.

Their sources being identical in the different parties,
they manifested themselves on every hand with

identical violence.

It has been proved, by means of documents,

that the Girondists were no less sanguinary than the
Montagnards. They were the first to declare, with

Petion, that the vanquished parties should perish.
They also, according to M. Aulard, attempted to

justify the massacres of September. The Terror
must not be considered simply as a means of

defence, but as the general process of destruction to
which triumphant believers have always treated

their detested enemies. Men who can put up with
the greatest divergence of ideas cannot tolerate

differences of belief.
In religious or political warfare the

vanquished can hope for no quarter. From Sulla,

who cut the throats of two hundred senators and

five or six thousand Romans, to the men who
suppressed the Commune, and shot down more

than twenty thousand after their victory, this bloody

law has never failed. Proved over and over again in
the past, it will doubtless be so in the future.

The hatreds of the Revolution did not arise

entirely from divergence of belief. Other

sentiments--envy, ambition, and self-love--also
engendered them. The rivalry of individuals aspiring

to power led the chiefs of the various groups in
succession to the scaffold.

We must remember, moreover, that the
need of division and the hatred resulting therefrom

seem to be constituent elements of the Latin mind.
They cost our Gaulish ancestors their independence,

and had already struck Caesar.
``No city,'' he said, ``but was divided into

two factions; no canton, no village, no house in

which the spirit of party did not breathe. It was

very rarely that a year went by without a city taking

up arms to attack or repulse its neighbours.''

As man has only recently entered upon the
age of knowledge, and has always hitherto been

guided by sentiments and beliefs, we may conceive

the vast importance of hatred as a factor of his
history.
Commandant Colin, professor at the College

of War, remarks in the following terms on the

importance of this feeling during certain wars:--
`Ìn war more than at any other time there

is no better inspiring force than hatred; it was
hatred that made Blucher victorious over Napoleon.

Analyse the most wonderful manoeuvres, the most
decisive operations, and if they are not the work of

an exceptional man, a Frederick or a Napoleon, you
will find they are inspired by passion more than by

calculation. What would the war of 1870 have been
without the hatred which we bore the Germans?''

The writer might have added that the

intense hatred of the Japanese for the Russians,

who had so humiliated them, might be classed

among the causes of their success. The Russian

soldiers, ignorant of the very existence of the
Japanese, had no animosity against them, which

was one of the reasons of their failure.

There was assuredly a good deal of talk of
fraternity at the time of the Revolution, and there is

even more to-day. Pacificism, humanitarianism,

and solidarity have become catchwords of the

advanced parties, but we know how profound are
the hatreds concealed beneath these terms, and

what dangers overhang our modern society. Fear.-
-Fear plays almost as large a part in revolutions as

hatred. During the French Revolution there were
many examples of great individual courage and

many exhibitions of collective cowardice.
Facing the scaffold, the men of the

Convention were always brave in the extreme; but
before the threats of the rioters who invaded the

Assembly they constantly exhibited an excessive

pusillanimity, obeying the most absurd injunctions,

as we shall see if we re-read the history of the

revolutionary Assemblies.
All the forms of fear were observed at this
period. One of the most widespread was the fear of

appearing moderate. Members of the Assemblies,

public prosecutors, representatives `òn mission,''
judges of the revolutionary tribunals, &c., all sought

to appear more advanced than their rivals. Fear

was one of the principal elements of the crimes

committed at this period. If by some miracle it
could have been eliminated from the revolutionary

Assemblies, their conduct would have been quite
other than it was, and the Revolution itself would

have taken a very different direction.
Ambition, Envy, Vanity, &c.--In normal

times the influence of these various affective
elements is forcibly contained by social necessities.

Ambition, for instance, is necessarily limited in a
hierarchical form of society. Although the soldier

does sometimes become a general, it is only after a

long term of service. In time of revolution, on the

other hand, there is no need to wait. Every one

may reach the upper ranks almost immediately, so

that all ambitions are violently aroused. The
humblest man believes himself fitted for the highest

employments, and by this very fact his vanity grows

out of all measure.
All the passions being more or less aroused,

including ambition and vanity, we see the

development of jealousy and envy of those who

have succeeded more quickly than others.
The effect of jealousy, always important in

times of revolution, was especially so during the
great French Revolution. Jealousy of the nobility

constituted one of its most important factors. The
middle classes had increased in capacity and wealth,

to the point of surpassing the nobility. Although
they mingled with the nobles more and more, they

felt, none the less, that they were held at a
distance, and this they keenly resented. This frame

of mind had unconsciously made the bourgeoisie

keen supporters of the philosophic doctrine of

equality.

Wounded self-love and jealousy were thus

the causes of hatreds that we can scarcely conceive
today, when the social influence of the nobility is so

small. Many members of the Convention--Carrier,

Marat, and others--remembered with anger that
they had once occupied subordinate positions in the

establishments of great nobles. Mme. Roland was

never able to forget that, when she and her mother

were invited to the house of a great lady under the
ancien regime, they had been sent to dine in the

servants' quarters.
The philosopher Rivarol has very well

described in the following passage, already cited by
Taine, the influence of wounded self- love and

jealousy upon the revolutionary hatreds:--
`Ìt is not,'' he writes, ``the taxes, nor the

lettres de cachet, nor any of the other abuses of
authority; it is not the sins of the intendants, nor

the long and ruinous delays of justice, that has most

angered the nation; it is the prejudices of the

nobility for which it has exhibited the greatest

hatred. What proves this clearly is the fact that it is

the bourgeois, the men of letters, the men of
money, in fact all those who are jealous of the

nobility, who have raised the poorer inhabitants of

the cities against them, and the peasants in the
country districts.''
This very true statement partly justifies the

saying of Napoleon:

``Vanity made the Revolution; liberty was
only the pretext.''

Enthusiasm.--The enthusiasm of the
founders of the Revolution equalled that of the

apostles of the faith of Mohammed. And it was
really a religion that the bourgeois of the first

Assembly thought to found. They thought to have
destroyed an old world, and to have built a new one

upon its ruins. Never did illusion more seductive fire
the hearts of men. Equality and fraternity,

proclaimed by the new dogmas, were to bring the

reign of eternal happiness to all the peoples. Man

had broken for ever with a past of barbarity and

darkness. The regenerated world would in future be

illuminated by the lucid radiance of pure reason. On
all hands the most brilliant oratorical formulae

saluted the expected dawn.

That this enthusiasm was so soon replaced
by violence was due to the fact that the awakening

was speedy and terrible. One can readily conceive

the indignant fury with which the apostles of the

Revolution attacked the daily obstacles opposed to
the realisation of their dreams. They had sought to

reject the past, to forget tradition, to make man
over again. But the past reappeared incessantly,

and men refused to change. The reformers,
checked in their onward march, would not give in.

They sought to impose by force a dictatorship which
speedily made men regret the system abolished,

and finally led to its return.
It is to be remarked that although the

enthusiasm of the first days did not last in the

revolutionary Assemblies, it survived very much

longer in the armies, and constituted their chief

strength. To tell the truth, the armies of the

Revolution were republican long before France
became so, and remained republican long after

France had ceased to be so.

The variations of character considered in
this chapter, being conditioned by certain common

aspirations and identical changes of environment,

finally became concrete in a small number of fairly

homogeneous mentalities. Speaking only of the
more characteristic, we may refer them to four

types: the Jacobin, mystic, revolutionary, and
criminal mentalities.


CHAPTER II THE MYSTIC MENTALITY AND

THE JACOBIN MENTALITY
1. Classification of Mentalities predominant

in Time of Revolution.
The classifications without which the study

of the sciences is impossible must necessarily
establish the discontinuous in the continuous, and

for that reason are to a certain extent artificial. But
they are necessary, since the continuous is only

accessible in the form of the discontinuous.
To create broad distinctions between the

various mentalities observable in time of revolution,

as we are about to do, is obviously to separate

elements which encroach upon one another, which

are fused or superimposed. We must resign

ourselves to losing a little in exactitude in order to

gain in lucidity. The fundamental types enumerated

at the end of the preceding chapter, and which we

are about to describe, synthetise groups which
would escape analysis were we to attempt to study

them in all their complexity.

We have shown that man is influenced by

different logics, which under normal conditions exist
in juxtaposition, without mutually influencing one

another. Under the action of various events they
enter into mutual conflict, and the irreducible

differences which divide them are visibly
manifested, involving considerable individual and

social upheavals.
Mystic logic, which we shall presently

consider as it appears in the Jacobin mind, plays a
very important part. But it is not alone in its action.

The other forms of logic--affective logic, collective

logic, and rational logic--may predominate according

to circumstances.

2. The Mystic Mentality.

Leaving aside for the moment the influence
of affective, rational, and collective logic, we will

occupy ourselves solely with the considerable part

played by the mystic elements which have prevailed
in so many revolutions, and notably in the French

Revolution.

The chief characteristic of the mystic

temperament consists in the attribution of a
mysterious power to superior beings or forces,

which are incarnated in the form of idols, fetiches,
words, or formulae.

The mystic spirit is at the bottom of all the
religious and most political beliefs. These latter

would often vanish could we deprive them of the
mystic elements which are their chief support.

Grafted on the sentiments and passionate
impulses which it directs, mystic logic constitutes

the might of the great popular movements. Men

who would be by no means ready to allow

themselves to be killed for the best of reasons will

readily sacrifice their lives to a mystic ideal which

has become an object of adoration.
The principles of the Revolution speedily

inspired a wave of mystic enthusiasm analogous to

those provoked by the various religious beliefs
which had preceded it. All they did was to change

the orientation of a mental ancestry which the

centuries had solidified.

So there is nothing astonishing in the
savage zeal of the men of the Convention. Their

mystic mentality was the same as that of the
Protestants at the time of the Reformation. The

principal heroes of the Terror--Couthon, Saint-Just,
Robespierre, &c.--were Apostles. Like Polyeuctes,

destroying the altars of the false gods to propagate
his faith, they dreamed of converting the globe.

Their enthusiasm spilled itself over the earth.
Persuaded that their magnificent formulae were

sufficient to overturn thrones, they did not hesitate

to declare war upon kings. And as a strong faith is

always superior to a doubtful faith, they victoriously

faced all Europe.

The mystic spirit of the leaders of the
Revolution was betrayed in the least details of their

public life. Robespierre, convinced that he was

supported by the Almighty, assured his hearers in a
speech that the Supreme Being had ``decreed the

Republic since the beginning of time.'' In his quality

of High Pontiff of a State religion he made the

Convention vote a decree declaring that ``the
French People recognises the existence of the

Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul.'' At
the festival of this Supreme Being, seated on a kind

of throne, he preached a lengthy sermon.
The Jacobin Club, directed by Robespierre,

finally assumed all the functions of a council. There
Maximilien proclaimed ``the idea of a Great Being

who watches over oppressed innocence and who
punishes triumphant crime.''

All the heretics who criticised the Jacobin

orthodoxy were excommunicated--that is, were sent

to the Revolutionary Tribunal, which they left only

for the scaffold.

The mystic mentality of which Robespierre
was the most celebrated representative did not die

with him. Men of identical mentality are to be found

among the French politicians of to-day. The old
religious beliefs no longer rule their minds, but they

are the creatures of political creeds which they

would very soon force on others, as did Robespierre,

if they had the chance of so doing. Always ready to
kill if killing would spread their faith, the mystics of

all ages have employed the same means of
persuasion as soon as they have become the

masters.
It is therefore quite natural that Robespierre

should still have many admirers. Minds moulded
like his are to be met with in their thousands. His

conceptions were not guillotined with him. Old as
humanity, they will only disappear with the last

believer.
This mystic aspect of all revolutions has

escaped the majority of the historians. They will

persist for a long time yet in trying to explain by

means of rational logic a host of phenomena which
have nothing to do with reason. I have already

cited a passage from the history of MM. Lavisse and

Rambaud, in which the Reformation is explained as
``the result of the free individual reflections

suggested to simple folk by an extremely pious

conscience, and a bold and courageous reason.''

Such movements are never comprehended
by those who imagine that their origin is rational.

Political or religious, the beliefs which have moved
the world possess a common origin and follow the

same laws. They are formed, not by the reason, but
more often contrary to reason. Buddhism,

Christianity, Islamism, the Reformation, sorcery,
Jacobinism, socialism, spiritualism, &c., seem very

different forms of belief, but they have, I repeat,
identical mystic and affective bases, and obey forms

of logic which have no affinity with rational logic.

Their might resides precisely in the fact that reason

has as little power to create them as to transform

them.
The mystic mentality of our modern political
apostles is strongly marked in an article dealing with

one of our recent ministers, which I cite from a

leading journal:
`Òne may ask into what category does M.

A----fall? Could we say, for instance, that he

belongs to the group of unbelievers? Far from it!

Certainly M. A---- has not adopted any positive
faith; certainly he curses Rome and Geneva,

rejecting all the traditional dogmas and all the
known Churches. But if he makes a clean sweep it

is in order to found his own Church on the ground so
cleared, a Church more dogmatic than all the rest;

and his own inquisition, whose brutal intolerance
would have no reason to envy the most notorious of

Torquemadas.
`` `We cannot,' he says, àllow such a

thing as scholastic neutrality. We demand lay

instruction in all its plenitude, and are consequently

the enemies of educational liberty.' If he does not

suggest erecting the stake and the pyre, it is only

on account of the evolution of manners, which he is
forced to take into account to a certain extent,

whether he will or no. But, not being able to

commit men to the torture, he invokes the secular
arm to condemn their doctrines to death. This is

exactly the point of view of the great inquisitors. It

is the same attack upon thought. This freethinker

has so free a spirit that every philosophy he does
not accept appears to him, not only ridiculous and

grotesque, but criminal. He flatters himself that he
alone is in possession of the absolute truth. Of this

he is so entirely sure that everyone who contradicts
him seems to him an execrable monster and a

public enemy. He does not suspect for a moment
that after all his personal views are only hypotheses,

and that he is all the more laughable for claiming a
Divine right for them precisely because they deny

divinity. Or, at least, they profess to do so; but

they re-establish it in another shape, which

immediately makes one regret the old. M. A---- is a

sectary of the goddess Reason, of whom he has

made a Moloch, an oppressive deity hungry for
sacrifice. No more liberty of thought for any one

except for himself and his friends; such is the free

thought of M. A----. The outlook is truly attractive.
But perhaps too many idols have been cast down

during the last few centuries for men to bow before

this one.''

We must hope for the sake of liberty that
these gloomy fanatics will never finally become our

masters.
Given the silent power of reason over mystic

beliefs, it is quite useless to seek to discuss, as is so
often done, the rational value of revolutionary or

political ideas. Only their influence can interest us.
It matters little that the theories of the supposed

equality of men, the original goodness of mankind,
the possibility of re-making society by means of

laws, have been given the lie by observation and

experience. These empty illusions must be counted

among the most potent motives of action that

humanity has known.

3. The Jacobin Mentality.
Although the term ``Jacobin mentality''

does not really belong to any true classification, I

employ it here because it sums up a clearly defined
combination which constitutes a veritable

psychological species.

This mentality dominates the men of the

French Revolution, but is not peculiar to them, as it
still represents one of the most active elements in

our politics.
The mystic mentality which we have already

considered is an essential factor of the Jacobin
mind, but it is not in itself enough to constitute that

mind. Other elements, which we shall now
examine, must be added.

The Jacobins do not in the least suspect
their mysticism. On the contrary, they profess to be

guided solely by pure reason. During the Revolution

they invoked reason incessantly, and considered it

as their only guide to conduct.

The majority of historians have adopted this

rationalist conception of the Jacobin mind, and Taine
fell into the same error. It is in the abuse of

rationalism that he seeks the origin of a great

proportion of the acts of the Jacobins. The pages in
which he has dealt with the subject contain many

truths, however, and as they are in other ways very

remarkable, I reproduce the most important

passages here:--
``Neither exaggerated self-love nor

dogmatic reasoning is rare in the human species. In
all countries these two roots of the Jacobin spirit

subsist, secret and indestructible. . . . At twenty
years of age, when a young man is entering into the

world, his reason is stimulated simultaneously with
his pride. In the first place, whatever society he

may move in, it is contemptible to pure reason, for
it has not been constructed by a philosophic

legislator according to a principle, but successive

generations have arranged it according to their

multiple and ever-changing needs. It is not the

work of logic, but of history, and the young reasoner

shrugs his shoulders at the sight of this old building,
whose site is arbitrary, whose architecture is

incoherent, and whose inconveniences are obvious. .

. . The majority of young people, above all those
who have their way to make, are more or less

Jacobin on leaving college. . . . Jacobinism is born

of social decomposition just as mushrooms are born

of a fermenting soil. Consider the authentic
monuments of its thought--the speeches of

Robespierre and Saint-Just, the debates of the
Legislative Assembly and the Convention, the

harangues, addresses, and reports of Girondists and
Montagnards. Never did men speak so much to say

so little; the empty verbiage and swollen emphasis
swamp any truth there may be beneath their

monotony and their turgidity. The Jacobin is full of
respect for the phantoms of his reasoning brain; in

his eyes they are more real than living men, and
their suffrage is the only suffrage he recognises--he

will march onward in all sincerity at the head of a

procession of imaginary followers. The millions of

metaphysical wills which he has created in the
image of his own will sustain him by their

unanimous assent, and he will project outwards, like

a chorus of triumph and acclamation, the inward
echo of his own voice.''

While admiring Taine's description, I think

he has not exactly grasped the psychology of the

Jacobin.
The mind of the true Jacobin, at the time of

the Revolution as now, was composed of elements
which we must analyse if we are to understand its

function.
This analysis will show in the first place that

the Jacobin is not a rationalist, but a believer. Far
from building his belief on reason, he moulds reason

to his belief, and although his speeches are steeped
in rationalism he employs it very little in his

thoughts and his conduct.

A Jacobin who reasoned as much as he is

accused of reasoning would be sometimes

accessible to the voice of reason. Now, observation

proves, from the time of the Revolution to our own
days, that the Jacobin is never influenced by

reasoning, however just, and it is precisely here that

his strength resides.
And why is he not accessible to reason?

Simply because his vision of things, always

extremely limited, does not permit of his resisting

the powerful and passionate impulses which guide
him.

These two elements, feeble reason and
strong passions, would not of themselves constitute

the Jacobin mind. There is another.
Passion supports convictions, but hardly

ever creates them. Now, the true Jacobin has
forcible convictions. What is to sustain them? Here

the mystic elements whose action we have already
studied come into play. The Jacobin is a mystic who

has replaced the old divinities by new gods. Imbued

with the power of words and formulae, he attributes

to these a mysterious power. To serve these

exigent divinities he does not shrink from the most

violent measures. The laws voted by our modern
Jacobins furnish a proof of this fact.

The Jacobin mentality is found especially in

narrow and passionate characters. It implies, in
fact, a narrow and rigid mind, inaccessible to all

criticism and to all considerations but those of faith.

The mystic and affective elements which

dominate the mind of the Jacobin condemn him to
an extreme simplicity. Grasping only the superficial

relations of things, nothing prevents him from
taking for realities the chimerical images which are

born of his imagination. The sequence of
phenomena and their results escape him. He never

raises his eyes from his dream.
As we may see, it is not by the development

of his logical reason that the Jacobin exceeds. He
possesses very little logic of this kind, and therefore

he often becomes dangerous. Where a superior

man would hesitate or halt the Jacobin, who has

placed his feeble reason at the service of his

impulses, goes forward with certainty.

So that although the Jacobin is a great
reasoner, this does not mean that he is in the least

guided by reason. When he imagines he is being

led by reason it is really his passions and his
mysticism that lead him. Like all those who are

convinced and hemmed in by the walls of faith, he

can never escape therefrom.

A true aggressive theologian, he is
astonishingly like the disciples of Calvin described in

a previous chapter. Hypnotised by their faith,
nothing could deter them from their object. All

those who contradicted their articles of faith were
considered worthy of death. They too seemed to be

powerful reasoners. Ignorant, like the Jacobins, of
the secret forces that led them, they believed that

reason was their sole guide, while in reality they
were the slaves of mysticism and passion.

The truly rationalistic Jacobin would be

incomprehensible, and would merely make reason

despair. The passionate and mystical Jacobin is, on

the contrary, easily intelligible.

With these three elements--a very weak
reasoning power, very strong passions, and an

intense mysticism--we have the true psychological

components of the mind of the Jacobin.

CHAPTER III THE REVOLUTIONARY AND

CRIMINAL MENTALITIES
1. The Revolutionary Mentality.

We have just seen that the mystic elements
are one of the components of the Jacobin mentality.

We shall now see that they enter into another form
of mentality which is also clearly defined, the

revolutionary mentality.
In all ages societies have contained a certain

number of restless spirits, unstable and
discontented, ready to rebel against any established

order of affairs. They are actuated by the mere love

of revolt, and if some magic power could realise all

their desires they would simply revolt again.

This special mentality often results from a

faulty adaptation of the individual to his

surroundings, or from an excess of mysticism, but it

may also be merely a question of temperament or

arise from pathological disturbances.
The need of revolt presents very different

degrees of intensity, from simple discontent

expressed in words directed against men and things

to the need of destroying them. Sometimes the
individual turns upon himself the revolutionary

frenzy that he cannot otherwise exercise. Russia is
full of these madmen, who, not content with

committing arson or throwing bombs at hazard into
the crowd, finally mutilate themselves, like the

Skopzis and other analogous sects.
These perpetual rebels are generally highly

suggestible beings, whose mystic mentality is
obsessed by fixed ideas. Despite the apparent

energy indicated by their actions they are really

weak characters, and are incapable of mastering

themselves sufficiently to resist the impulses that

rule them. The mystic spirit which animates them

furnishes pretexts for their violence, and enables
them to regard themselves as great reformers.

In normal times the rebels which every

society contains are restrained by the laws, by their
environment--in short, by all the usual social

constraints, and therefore remain undetected. But

as soon as a time of disturbance begins these

constraints grow weaker, and the rebel can give a
free reign to his instincts. He then becomes the

accredited leader of a movement. The motive of the
revolution matters little to him; he will give his life

indifferently for the red flag or the white, or for the
liberation of a country which he has heard vaguely

mentioned.
The revolutionary spirit is not always pushed

to the extremes which render it dangerous. When,
instead of deriving from affective or mystic

impulses, it has an intellectual origin, it may become

a source of progress. It is thanks to those spirits

who are sufficiently independent to be intellectually

revolutionary that a civilisation is able to escape

from the yoke of tradition and habit when this
becomes too heavy. The sciences, arts, and

industries especially have progressed by the aid of

such men. Galileo, Lavoisier, Darwin, and Pasteur
were such revolutionaries.

Although it is not necessary that a nation

should possess any large number of such spirits, it

is very necessary that it should possess some.
Without them men would still be living in caves.

The revolutionary audacity which results in
discoveries implies very rare faculties. It

necessitates notably an independence of mind
sufficient to escape from the influence of current

opinions, and a judgement that can grasp, under
superficial analogies, the hidden realities. This form

of revolutionary spirit is creative, while that
examined above is destructive.

The revolutionary mentality may, therefore,

be compared to certain physiological states in the

life of the individual which are normally useful, but

which, when exaggerated, take a pathological form

which is always hurtful.
2. The Criminal Mentality.

All the civilised societies inevitably drag

behind them a residue of degenerates, of the
unadapted, of persons affected by various taints.

Vagabonds, beggars, fugitives from justice, thieves,

assassins, and starving creatures that live from day

to day, may constitute the criminal population of the
great cities. In ordinary times these waste products

of civilisation are more or less restrained by the
police. During revolution nothing restrains them,

and they can easily gratify their instincts to murder
and plunder. In the dregs of society the

revolutionaries of all times are sure of finding
recruits. Eager only to kill and to plunder, little

matters to them the cause they are sworn to
defend. If the chances of murder and pillage are

better in the party attacked, they will promptly

change their colours.

To these criminals, properly so called, the

incurable plague of all societies, we must add the

class of semi-criminals. Wrongdoers on occasion,
they never rebel so long as the fear of the

established order restrains them, but as soon as it

weakens they enrol themselves in the army of
revolution.
These two categories--habitual and

occasional criminals--form an army of disorder

which is fit for nothing but the creation of disorder.
All the revolutionaries, all the founders of religious

or political leagues, have constantly counted on
their support.

We have already stated that this population,
with its criminal mentality, exercised a considerable

influence during the French Revolution. It always
figured in the front rank of the riots which occurred

almost daily. Certain historians have spoken with
respect and emotion of the way in which the

sovereign people enforced its will upon the

Convention, invading the hall armed with pikes, the

points of which were sometimes decorated with

newly severed heads. If we analyse the elements

composing the pretended delegations of the
sovereign people, we shall find that, apart from a

small number of simple souls who submitted to the

impulses of the leaders, the mass was almost
entirely formed of the bandits of whom I have been

speaking. To them were due the innumerable

murders of which the massacres of September and

the killing of the Princesse de Lamballe were merely
typical.

They terrorised all the great Assemblies,
from the Constituent Assembly to the Convention,

and for ten years they helped to ravage France. If
by some miracle this army of criminals could have

been eliminated, the progress of the Revolution
would have been very different. They stained it with

blood from its dawn to its decline. Reason could do
nothing with them but they could do much against

reason.


CHAPTER IV THE PSYCHOLOGY OF

REVOLUTIONARY CROWDS
1. General Characteristics of the Crowd.

Whatever their origin, revolutions do not
produce their full effects until they have penetrated

the soul of the multitude. They therefore represent
a consequence of the psychology of crowds.

Although I have studied collective
psychology at length in another volume, I must here

recall its principal laws.
Man, as part of a multitude, is a very

different being from the same man as an isolated

individual. His conscious individuality vanishes in

the unconscious personality of the crowd.

Material contact is not absolutely necessary

to produce in the individual the mentality of the

crowd. Common passions and sentiments,

provoked by certain events, are often sufficient to

create it.
The collective mind, momentarily formed,

represents a very special kind of aggregate. Its

chief peculiarity is that it is entirely dominated by

unconscious elements, and is subject to a peculiar
collective logic.

Among the other characteristics of crowds,
we must note their infinite credulity and

exaggerated sensibility, their short- sightedness,
and their incapacity to respond to the influences of

reason. Affirmation, contagion, repetition, and
prestige constitute almost the only means of

persuading them. Reality and experience have no
effect upon them. The multitude will admit

anything; nothing is impossible in the eyes of the

crowd.

By reason of the extreme sensibility of

crowds, their sentiments, good or bad, are always

exaggerated. This exaggeration increases still
further in times of revolution. The least excitement

will then lead the multitude to act with the utmost

fury. Their credulity, so great even in the normal
state, is still further increased; the most improbable

statements are accepted. Arthur Young relates that

when he visited the springs near Clermont, at the

time of the French Revolution, his guide was
stopped by the people, who were persuaded that he

had come by order of the Queen to mine and blow
up the town. The most horrible tales concerning the

Royal Family were circulated, depicting it as a nest
of ghouls and vampires.

These various characteristics show that man
in the crowd descends to a very low degree in the

scale of civilisation. He becomes a savage, with all
a savage's faults and qualities, with all his

momentary violence, enthusiasm, and heroism. In

the intellectual domain a crowd is always inferior to

the isolated unit. In the moral and sentimental

domain it may be his superior. A crowd will commit

a crime as readily as an act of abnegation.
Personal characteristics vanish in the crowd,

which exerts an extraordinary influence upon the

individuals which form it. The miser becomes
generous, the sceptic a believer, the honest man a

criminal, the coward a hero. Examples of such

transformations abounded during the great

Revolution.
As part of a jury or a parliament, the

collective man renders verdicts or passes laws of
which he would never have dreamed in his isolated

condition.
One of the most notable consequences of

the influence of a collectivity upon the individuals
who compose it is the unification of their sentiments

and wills. This psychological unity confers a
remarkable force upon crowds.

The formation of such a mental unity results

chiefly from the fact that in a crowd gestures and

actions are extremely contagious. Acclamations of

hatred, fury, or love are immediately approved and

repeated.
What is the origin of these common

sentiments, this common will? They are propagated

by contagion, but a point of departure is necessary
before this contagion can take effect. Without a

leader the crowd is an amorphous entity incapable

of action.

A knowledge of the laws relating to the
psychology of crowds is indispensable to the

interpretation of the elements of our Revolution, and
to a comprehension of the conduct of revolutionary

assemblies, and the singular transformations of the
individuals who form part of them. Pushed by the

unconscious forces of the collective soul, they more
often than not say what they did not intend, and

vote what they would not have wished to vote.
Although the laws of collective psychology

have sometimes been divined instinctively by

superior statesmen, the majority of Governments

have not understood and do not understand them.

It is because they do not understand them that so

many of them have fallen so easily. When we see
the facility with which certain Governments were

overthrown by an insignificant riot--as happened in

the case of the monarchy of Louis-Philippe--the
dangers of an ignorance of collective psychology are

evident. The marshal in command of the troops in

1848, which were more than sufficient to defend the

king, certainly did not understand that the moment
he allowed the crowd to mingle with the troops the

latter, paralysed by suggestion and contagion,
would cease to do their duty. Neither did he know

that as the multitude is extremely sensible to
prestige it needs a great display of force to impress

it, and that such a display will at once suppress
hostile demonstrations. He was equally ignorant of

the fact that all gatherings should be dispersed
immediately. All these things have been taught by

experience, but in 1848 these lessons had not been

grasped. At the time of the great Revolution the

psychology of crowds was even less understood.

2. How the Stability of the Racial Mind limits

the Oscillations of the Mind of the Crowd.
A people can in a sense be likened to a

crowd. It possesses certain characteristics, but the

oscillations of these characteristics are limited by
the soul or mind of the race. The mind of the race
has a fixity unknown to the transitory mind of the

crowd.

When a people possesses an ancestral soul
established by a long past the soul of the crowd is

always dominated thereby.
A people differs from a crowd also in that it

is composed of a collection of groups, each having
different interests and passions. In a crowd

properly so-called--a popular assembly, for
example--there are unities which may belong to

very different social categories.
A people sometimes seems as mobile as a

crowd, but we must not forget that behind its

mobility, its enthusiasms, its violence and

destructiveness, the extremely tenacious and

conservative instincts of the racial mind persist.

The history of the Revolution and the century which
has followed shows how the conservative spirit

finally overcomes the spirit of destruction. More

than one system of government which the people
has shattered has been restored by the people.

It is not as easy to work upon the mind of

the people--that is, the mind of the race--as on the

mind of a crowd. The means of action are indirect
and slower (journals, conferences, speeches, books,

&c.). The elements of persuasion always come
under the headings already given: affirmation,

repetition, prestige, and contagion.
Mental contagion may affect a whole people

instantaneously, but more often it operates slowly,
creeping from group to group. Thus was the

Reformation propagated in France.
A people is far less excitable than a crowd;

but certain events-- national insults, threats of

invasion, &c.--may arouse it instantly. Such a

phenomenon was observed on several occasions

during the Revolution, notably at the time of the

insolent manifesto issued by the Duke of Brunswick.
The Duke knew little indeed of the psychology of the

French race when he proffered his threats. Not only

did he considerably prejudice the cause of Louis
XVI.; but he also damaged his own, since his

intervention raised from the soil an army eager to

fight him.

This sudden explosion of feeling throughout
a whole race has been observed in all nations.

Napoleon did not understand the power of such
explosions when he invaded Spain and Russia. One

may easily disaggregate the facile mind of a crowd,
but one can do nothing before the permanent soul

of a race. Certainly the Russian peasant is a very
indifferent being, gross and narrow by nature, yet at

the first news of invasion he was transformed. One
may judge of this fact on reading a letter written by

Elizabeth, wife of the Emperor Alexander I.

``From the moment when Napoleon had

crossed our frontiers it was as though an electric

spark had spread through all Russia; and if the

immensity of its area had made it possible for the
news to penetrate simultaneously to every corner of

the Empire a cry of indignation would have arisen so

terrible that I believe it would have resounded to
the ends of the earth. As Napoleon advances this

feeling is growing yet stronger. Old men who have

lost all or nearly all their goods are saying: `We

shall find a way of living. Anything is preferable to a
shameful peace.' Women all of whose kin are in the

army regard the dangers they are running as
secondary, and fear nothing but peace. Happily this

peace, which would be the death-warrant of Russia,
will not be negotiated; the Emperor does not

conceive of such an idea, and even if he would he
could not. This is the heroic side of our position.''

The Empress describes to her mother the
two following traits, which give some idea of the

degree of resistance of which the soul of the Russian

is capable:--

``The Frenchmen had caught some

unhappy peasants in Moscow, whom they thought to

force to serve in their ranks, and in order that they
should not be able to escape they branded their

hands as one brands horses in the stud. One of

them asked what this mark meant; he was told it
signified that he was a French soldier. `What! I am

a soldier of the Emperor of the French!' he said.

And immediately he took his hatchet, cut off his

hand, and threw it at the feet of those present,
saying, `Take it--there's your mark!'

`Àt Moscow, too, the French had taken a
score of peasants of whom they wished to make an

example in order to frighten the villagers, who were
picking off the French foraging parties and were

making war as well as the detachments of regular
troops. They ranged them against a wall and read

their sentence in Russian. They waited for them to
beg for mercy: instead of that they took farewell of

one another and made their sign of the cross. The

French fired on the first of them; they waited for the

rest to beg for pardon in their terror, and to promise

to change their conduct. They fired on the second,

and on the third, and so on all the twenty, without a
single one having attempted to implore the

clemency of the enemy. Napoleon has not once had

the pleasure of profaning this word in Russia.''
Among the characteristics of the popular

mind we must mention that in all peoples and all

ages it has been saturated with mysticism. The

people will always be convinced that superior
beings--divinities, Governments, or great men--

have the power to change things at will. This mystic
side produces an intense need of adoration. The

people must have a fetich, either a man or a
doctrine. This is why, when threatened with

anarchy, it calls for a Messiah to save it.
Like the crowd, but more slowly, the people

readily passes from adoration to hatred. A man
may be the hero of the people at one period, and

finally earn its curses. These variations of popular

opinion concerning political personalities may be

observed in all times. The history of Cromwell

furnishes us with a very curious example.[5]

[5] After having overthrown a dynasty and
refused a crown he was buried like a king among

kings. Two years later his body was torn from the
tomb, and his head, cut off by the executioner, was
exposed above the gate of the House of Parliament.

A little while ago a statue was raised to him. The

old anarchist turned autocrat now figures in the

gallery of demigods.

4. The Role of the Leader in Revolutionary
Movements.

All the varieties of crowds--homogeneous
and heterogeneous, assemblies, peoples, clubs, &c.-

-are, as we have often repeated, aggregates
incapable of unity and action so long as they find no

master to lead them.
I have shown elsewhere, making use of

certain physiological experiments, that the
unconscious collective mind of the crowd seems

bound up with the mind of the leader. The latter

gives it a single will and imposes absolute

obedience.
The leader acts especially through

suggestion. His success depends on his fashion of

provoking this suggestion. Many experiments have
shown to what point a collectivity may be subjected
to suggestion.[6]

[6] Among the numerous experiments

made to prove this fact one of the most remarkable
was performed on the pupils of his class by

Professor Glosson and published in the Revue
Scientifique for October 28, 1899.

`Ì prepared a bottle filled with distilled
water carefully wrapped in cotton and packed in a

box. After several other experiments I stated that I
wished to measure the rapidity with which an odour

would diffuse itself through the air, and asked those
present to raise their hands the moment they

perceived the odour. . . . I took out the bottle and

poured the water on the cotton, turning my head

away during the operation, then took up a stop-

watch and awaited the result. . . . I explained that I

was absolutely sure that no one present had ever
smelt the odour of the chemical composition I had

spilt. . . . At the end of fifteen seconds the majority

of those in front had held up their hands, and in
forty seconds the odour had reached the back of the

hall by fairly regular waves. About three-quarters of

those present declared that they perceived the

odour. A larger number would doubtless have
succumbed to suggestion, if at the end of a minute I

had not been forced to stop the experiment, some
of those in the front rows being unpleasantly

affected by the odour, and wishing to leave the
hall.''

According to the suggestions of the leaders,

the multitude will be calm, furious, criminal, or
heroic. These various suggestions may sometimes

appear to present a rational aspect, but they will

only appear to be reasonable. A crowd is in reality

inaccessible to reason; the only ideas capable of

influencing it will always be sentiments evoked in

the form of images.
The history of the Revolution shows on

every page how easily the multitude follows the

most contradictory impulses given by its different
leaders. We see it applaud just as vigorously at the

triumph of the Girondists, the Hebertists, the

Dantonists, and the Terrorists as at their successive

downfalls. One may be quite sure, also, that the
crowd understood nothing of these events.

At a distance one can only confusedly
perceive the part played by the leaders, for they

commonly work in the shade. To grasp this clearly
we must study them in contemporary events. We

shall then see how readily the leader can provoke
the most violent popular movements. We are not

thinking here of the strikes of the postmen or
railway men, in which the discontent of the

employees might intervene, but of events in which

the crowd was not in the least interested. Such, for

example, was the popular rising provoked by a few

Socialist leaders amidst the Parisian populace on the

morrow of the execution of Ferrer, in Spain. The
French crowd had never heard of Ferrer. In Spain

his execution was almost unnoticed. In Paris the

incitements of a few leaders sufficed to hurl a
regular popular army upon the Spanish Embassy,

with the intention of burning it. Part of the garrison

had to be employed to protect it. Energetically

repulsed, the assailants contented themselves with
sacking a few shops and building some barricades.

At the same time, the leaders gave another proof of
their influence. Finally understanding that the

burning of a foreign embassy might be extremely
dangerous, they ordered a pacific demonstration for

the following day, and were as faithfully obeyed as if
they had ordered the most violent riot. No example

could better show the importance of leaders and the
submission of the crowd

The historians who, from Michelet to M.

Aulard, have represented the revolutionary crowd as

having acted on its own initiative, without leaders,

do not comprehend its psychology.


CHAPTER V THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE

REVOLUTIONARY ASSEMBLIES
1. Psychological Characteristics of the great

Revolutionary Assemblies.
A great political assembly, a parliament for

example, is a crowd, but a crowd which sometimes
fails in effectual action on account of the contrary

sentiments of the hostile groups composing it.
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 committees--of 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 and

declared that he would give his two daughters to the

two first soldiers to be wounded by the enemy. He

wanted the nobles to be killed, &c. Now, Monge was

the most gentle and feeble of men, and wouldn't

have had a chicken killed if he had had to do it with
his own hands, or even to have it done in his

presence.''

3. A Suggested Explanation of the Progressive

Exaggeration of Sentiments in Assemblies.
If collective sentiments were susceptible of

exact quantitative measurement, we might translate
them by a curve which, after a first gradual ascent,

runs upward with extreme rapidity and then falls
almost vertically. The equation of this curve might

be called the equation of the variations of collective
sentiments subjected to a constant excitation.

It is not always easy to explain the
acceleration of certain sentiments under the

influence of a constant exciting cause. Perhaps,
however, one may say that if the laws of psychology

are comparable to those of mechanics, a cause of

invariable dimensions acting in a continuous fashion

will rapidly increase the intensity of a sentiment.

We know, for example, that a force which is

constant in dimension and direction, such as gravity

acting upon a mass, will cause an accelerated
movement. The speed of a free object falling in
space under the influence of gravity will be about 32

feet during the first second, 64 feet during the next,

96 feet during the next, &c. It would be easy, were
the moving body allowed to fall from a sufficient

height, to give it a velocity sufficient to perforate a
plate of steel.

But although this explanation is applicable
to the acceleration of a sentiment subjected to a

constant exciting cause, it does not tell us why the
effects of acceleration finally and suddenly cease.

Such a fall is only comprehensible if we bring in
physiological factors--that is, if we remember that

pleasure, like pain, cannot exceed certain limits, and

that all sensations, when too violent, result in the

paralysis of sensation. Our organism can only

support a certain maximum of joy, pain, or effort,

and it cannot support that maximum for long
together. The hand which grasps a dynamometer

soon exhausts its effort, and is obliged suddenly to

let go.
The study of the causes of the rapid

disappearance of certain groups of sentiments in

assemblies will remind us of the fact that beside the

party which is predominant by means of its strength
or prestige there are others whose sentiments,

restrained by this force or prestige, have not
reached their full development. Some chance

circumstance may somewhat weaken the prevailing
party, when immediately the suppressed sentiments

of the adverse parties may become preponderant.
The Mountain learned this lesson after Thermidor.

All analogies that we may seek to establish
between the laws of material phenomena and those

which condition the evolution of affective and mystic

factors are evidently extremely rough. They must

be so until the mechanism of the cerebral functions

is better understood than it is to-day.


PART II

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION


BOOK I THE ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH

REVOLUTION


CHAPTER I THE OPINIONS OF HISTORIANS

CONCERNING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
1. The Historians of the Revolution.

The most contradictory opinions have been
expressed respecting the French Revolution, and

although only a century separates us from the
period in question it seems impossible as yet to

judge it calmly. For de Maistre it was `à satanic
piece of work,'' and ``never was the action of the

spirit of darkness so evidently manifested.'' For the
modern Jacobins it has regenerated the human

race.
Foreigners who live in France still regard it

as a subject to be avoided in conversation.

`Èverywhere,'' writes Barrett Wendell,

``this memory and these traditions are still

endowed with such vitality that few persons are

capable of considering them dispassionately. They

still excite both enthusiasm and resentment; they
are still regarded with a loyal and ardent spirit of

partisanship. The better you come to understand

France the more clearly you see that even to- day

no study of the Revolution strikes any Frenchman as
having been impartial.''

This observation is perfectly correct. To be
interpretable with equity, the events of the past

must no longer be productive of results and must
not touch the religious or political beliefs whose

inevitable intolerance I have denoted.
We must not therefore be surprised that

historians express very different ideas respecting
the Revolution. For a long time to come some will

still see in it one of the most sinister events of

history, while to others it will remain one of the

most glorious.

All writers on the subject have believed that

they have related its course with impartiality, but in
general they have merely supported contradictory

theories of peculiar simplicity. The documents being

innumerable and contradictory, their conscious or
unconscious choice has readily enabled them to

justify their respective theories.

The older historians of the Revolution--

Thiers, Quinet, and, despite his talent, Michelet
himself, are somewhat eclipsed to- day. Their

doctrines were by no means complicated; a historic
fatalism prevails generally in their work. Thiers

regarded the Revolution as the result of several
centuries of absolute monarchy, and the Terror as

the necessary consequence of foreign invasion.
Quinet described the excesses of 1793 as the result

of a long-continued despotism, but declared that the
tyranny of the Convention was unnecessary, and

hampered the work of the Revolution. Michelet saw

in this last merely the work of the people, whom he

blindly admired, and commenced the glorification

continued by other historians.

The former reputation of all these historians
has been to a great extent effaced by that of Taine.

Although equally impassioned, he threw a brilliant

light upon the revolutionary period, and it will
doubtless be long before his work is superseded.

Work so important is bound to show faults.

Taine is admirable in the representation of facts and

persons, but he attempts to judge by the standard
of rational logic events which were not dictated by

reason, and which, therefore, he cannot interpret.
His psychology, excellent when it is merely

descriptive, is very weak as soon as it becomes
explanatory. To affirm that Robespierre was a

pedantic ``swotter'' is not to reveal the causes of
his absolute power over the Convention, at a time

when he had spent several months in decimating it
with perfect impunity. It has very justly been said

of Taine that he saw well and understood little.

Despite these restrictions his work is highly

remarkable and has not been equalled. We may

judge of his immense influence by the exasperation

which he causes among the faithful defenders of
Jacobin orthodoxy, of which M. Aulard, professor at

the Sorbonne, is to-day the high priest. The latter

has devoted two years to writing a pamphlet against
Taine, every line of which is steeped in passion. All

this time spent in rectifying a few material errors

which are not really significant has only resulted in

the perpetration of the very same errors.
Reviewing his work, M. A. Cochin shows that

M. Aulard has at least on every other occasion been
deceived by his quotations, whereas Taine erred far

more rarely. The same historian shows also that we
must not trust M. Aulard's sources.

``These sources--proceedings, pamphlets,
journals, and the speeches and writings of patriots--

are precisely the authentic publications of
patriotism, edited by patriots, and edited, as a rule,

for the benefit of the public. He ought to have seen

in all this simply the special pleading of the

defendant: he had, before his eyes, a ready-made

history of the Revolution, which presents, side by

side with each of the acts of the `People,' from the
massacres of September to the law of Prairial, a

ready- made explanation according to the

republican system of defence.''
Perhaps the fairest criticism that one can

make of the work of Taine is that it was left

incomplete. He studied more especially the role of

the populace and its leaders during the
revolutionary period. This inspired him with pages

vibrating with an indignation which we can still
admire, but several important aspects of the

Revolution escaped him.
Whatever one may think of the Revolution,

an irreducible difference will always exist between
historians of the school of Taine and those of the

school of M. Aulard. The latter regards the
sovereign people as admirable, while the former

shows us that 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:--

`Àt 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:
`Èverything 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 result--not even the most

unexpected--that 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 them--whether 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 all--

which is what the fatalistic writers already cited do

not show us--a 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:--

`Ì 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 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
Emperor--here 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
`èxploring 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 `à 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 landscape--that 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 work--that 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 men--that 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 assumed--

that 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 history--not 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

him tried by Parliament. Condemned at ten in the
morning, he was burned alive at noon.

Built up very gradually, the power of the
kings of France was not absolute until the time of

Louis XIV. It then rapidly declined, and it would be
truly difficult to speak of the absolutism of Louis

XVI.
This pretended master was the slave of his

court, his ministers, the clergy, and the nobles. He

did what they forced him to do and rarely what he

wished. Perhaps no Frenchman was so little free as
the king.

The great power of the monarchy resided

originally in the Divine origin which was attributed
to it, and in the traditions which had accumulated

during the ages. These formed the real social

framework of the country.

The true cause of the disappearance of the
ancien regime was simply the weakening of the

traditions which served as its foundations. When
after repeated criticism it could find no more

defenders, the ancien regime crumbled like a
building whose foundations have been destroyed.

2. The Inconveniences of the Ancien Regime
A long-established system of government

will always finally seem acceptable to the people
governed. Habit masks its inconveniences, which

appear only when men begin to think. Then they

ask how they could ever have supported them. The

truly unhappy man is the man who believes himself

miserable.

It was precisely this belief which was gaining

ground at the time of the Revolution, under the

influence of the writers whose work we shall

presently study. Then the imperfections of the
ancien regime stared all men in the face. They were

numerous; it is enough to mention a few.

Despite the apparent authority of the central

power, the kingdom, formed by the successive
conquest of independent provinces, was divided into

territories each of which had its own laws and
customs, and each of which paid different imposts.

Internal customs-houses separated them. The unity
of France was thus somewhat artificial. It

represented an aggregate of various countries which
the repeated efforts of the kings, including Louis

XIV., had not succeeded in wholly unifying. The
most useful effect of the Revolution was this very

unification.
To such material divisions were added social

divisions constituted by different classes--nobles,

clergy, and the Third Estate, whose rigid barriers

could only with the utmost difficulty be crossed.
Regarding the division of the classes as one

of its sources of power, the ancien regime had

rigorously maintained that division. This became
the principal cause of the hatreds which the system

inspired. Much of the violence of the triumphant

bourgeoisie represented vengeance for a long past

of disdain and oppression. The wounds of self-love
are the most difficult of all to forget. The Third

Estate had suffered many such wounds. At a
meeting of the States General in 1614, at which its

representatives were obliged to remain bareheaded
on their knees, one member of the Third Estate

having dared to say that the three orders were like
three brothers, the spokesman of the nobles replied

``that there was no fraternity between it and the
Third; that the nobles did not wish the children of

cobblers and tanners to call them their brothers.''

Despite the march of enlightenment the

nobles and the clergy obstinately preserved their

privileges and their demands, no longer justifiable

now that these classes had ceased to render
services.

Kept from the exercise of public functions by

the royal power, which distrusted them, and
progressively replaced by a bourgeoisie which was

more and more learned and capable, the social role

of nobility and clergy was only an empty show. This

point has been luminously expounded by Taine:--
``Since the nobility, having lost its special

capacity, and the Third Estate, having acquired
general capacity, were now on a level in respect of

education and aptitudes, the inequality which
divided them had become hurtful and useless.

Instituted by custom, it was no longer ratified by the
consciousness, and the Third Estate was with reason

angered by privileges which nothing justified,
neither the capacity of the nobles nor the incapacity

of the bourgeoisie.''
By reason of the rigidity of castes

established by a long past we cannot see what could

have persuaded the nobles and the clergy to

renounce their privileges. Certainly they did finally
abandon them one memorable evening, when

events forced them to do so; but then it was too

late, and the Revolution, unchained, was pursuing
its course.
It is certain that modern progress would

successively have established all that the Revolution

effected--the equality of citizens before the law, the
suppression of the privileges of birth, &c. Despite

the conservative spirit of the Latins, these things
would have been won, as they were by the majority

of the peoples. We might in this manner have been
saved twenty years of warfare and devastation; but

we must have had a different mental constitution,
and, above all, different statesmen.

The profound hostility of the bourgeoisie
against the classes maintained above it by tradition

was one of the great factors of the Revolution, and

perfectly explains why, after its triumph, the first

class despoiled the vanquished of their wealth.

They behaved as conquerors--like William the

Conqueror, who, after the conquest of England,
distributed the soil among his soldiers.

But although the bourgeoisie detested the

nobility they had no hatred for royalty, and did not
regard it as revocable. The maladdress of the king

and his appeals to foreign powers only very

gradually made him unpopular.

The first Assembly never dreamed of
founding a republic. Extremely royalist, in fact, it

thought simply to substitute a constitutional for an
absolute monarchy. Only the consciousness of its

increasing power exasperated it against the
resistance of the king; but it dared not overthrow

him.
3. Life under the Ancien Regime.

It is difficult to form a very clear idea of life
under the ancien regime, and, above all, of the real

situation of the peasants.

The writers who defend the Revolution as

theologians defend religious dogmas draw such

gloomy pictures of the existence of the peasants

under the ancien regime that we ask ourselves how

it was that all these unhappy creatures had not died

of hunger long before. A good example of this style

of writing may be found in a book by M. A.
Rambaud, formerly professor at the Sorbonne,

published under the title History of the French

Revolution. One notices especially an engraving

bearing the legend, Poverty of Peasants under Louis
XIV. In the foreground a man is fighting some dogs

for some bones, which for that matter are already
quite fleshless. Beside him a wretched fellow is

twisting himself and compressing his stomach.
Farther back a woman lying on the ground is eating

grass. At the back of the landscape figures of which
one cannot say whether they are corpses or persons

starving are also stretched on the soil. As an
example of the administration of the ancien regime

the same author assures us that `à place in the

police cost 300 livres and brought in 400,000.''

Such figures surely indicate a great

disinterestedness on the part of those who sold such

productive employment! He also informs us ``that
it cost only 120 livres to get people arrested,'' and

that `ùnder Louis XV. more than 150,000 lettres

de cachet were distributed.''
The majority of books dealing with the

Revolution are conceived with as little impartiality

and critical spirit, which is one reason why this

period is really so little known to us.
Certainly there is no lack of documents, but

they are absolutely contradictory. To the celebrated
description of La Bruyere we may oppose the

enthusiastic picture drawn by the English traveller
Young of the prosperous condition of the peasants

of some of the French provinces.
Were they really crushed by taxation, and

did they, as has been stated, pay four-fifths of their
revenue instead of a fifth as to-day? Impossible to

say with certainty. One capital fact, however,

seems to prove that under the ancien regime the

situation of the inhabitants of the rural districts

could not have been so very wretched, since it

seems established that more than a third of the soil
had been bought by peasants.

We are better informed as to the financial

system. It was very oppressive and extremely
complicated. The budgets usually showed deficits,

and the imposts of all kinds were raised by

tyrannical farmers-general. At the very moment of

the Revolution this condition of the finances became
the cause of universal discontent, which is

expressed in the cahiers of the States General. Let
us remark that these cahiers did not represent a

previous state of affairs, but an actual condition due
to a crisis of poverty produced by the bad harvest of

1788 and the hard winter of 1789. What would
these cahiers have told us had they been written ten

years earlier?
Despite these unfavourable circumstances

the cahiers contained no revolutionary ideas. The

most advanced merely asked that taxes should be

imposed only with the consent of the States General

and paid by all alike. The same cahiers sometimes

expressed a wish that the power of the king should
be limited by a Constitution defining his rights and

those of the nation. If these wishes had been

granted a constitutional monarchy could very easily
have been substituted for the absolute monarchy,

and the Revolution would probably have been

avoided.

Unhappily, the nobility and the clergy were
too strong and Louis XVI. too weak for such a

solution to be possible.
Moreover, it would have been rendered

extremely difficult by the demands of the
bourgeoisie, who claimed to substitute themselves

for the nobles, and were the real authors of the
Revolution. The movement started by the middle

classes rapidly exceeded their hopes, needs, and
aspirations. They had claimed equality for their own

profit, but the people also demanded equality. The

Revolution thus finally became the popular

government which it was not and had no intention

of becoming at the outset.

4. Evolution of Monarchical Feeling during the
Revolution.

Despite the slow evolution of the affective

elements, it is certain that during the Revolution the
sentiments, not of the people only, but also of the
revolutionary Assemblies with regard to the

monarchy, underwent a very rapid change.

Between the moment when the legislators of the
first Assembly surrounded Louis XVI. with respect

and the moment when his head was cut off a very
few years had elapsed.

These changes, superficial rather than
profound, were in reality a mere transposition of

sentiments of the same order. The love which the
men of this period professed for the king was

transferred to the new Government which had
inherited his power. The mechanism of such a

transfer may easily be demonstrated.

Under the ancien regime, the sovereign,

holding his power by Divine right, was for this

reason invested with a kind of supernatural power.

His people looked up to him from every corner of
the country.

This mystic belief in the absolute power of

royalty was shattered only when repeated
experience proved that the power attributed to the

adored being was fictitious. He then lost his

prestige. Now, when prestige is lost the crowd will

not forgive the fallen idol for deluding them, and
seek anew the idol without which they cannot exist.

From the outset of the Revolution numerous
facts, which were daily repeated, revealed to the

most fervent believers the fact that royalty no
longer possessed any power, and that there were

other powers capable, not only of contending with
royalty, but possessed of superior force.

What, for instance, was thought of the royal
power by the multitudes who saw the king held in

check by the Assembly, and incapable, in the heart

of Paris, of defending his strongest fortress against

the attacks of armed bands?

The royal weakness thus being obvious, the

power of the Assembly was increasing. Now, in the
eyes of the crowd weakness has no prestige; it

turns always to force.

In the Assemblies feeling was very fluid, but
did not evolve very rapidly, for which reason the

monarchical faith survived the taking of the Bastille

the flight of the king, and his understanding with

foreign sovereigns.
The royalist faith was still so powerful that

the Parisian riots and the events which led to the
execution of Louis XVI. were not enough finally to

destroy, in the provinces, the species of secular
piety which enveloped the old monarchy.[8]

[8] As an instance of the depth of this

hereditary love of the people for its kings, Michelet
relates the following fact, which occurred in the

reign of Louis XV.: ``When it was known in Paris

that Louis XV., who had left for the army, was

detained ill at Metz, it was night. People got up and

ran tumultuously hither and thither without knowing

where they were going; the churches were opened
in the middle of the night . . . people assembled at

every cross-road, jostling and questioning one

another without knowing what they were after. In
several churches the priest who was reciting the

prayer for the king's health was stopped by his

tears, and the people replied by sobs and cries. . . .

The courier who brought the news of his
convalescence was embraced and almost stifled;

people kissed his horse, and led him in triumph. . . .
Every street resounded with a cry of joy: `The king

is healed.' ''

It persisted in a great part of France during
the whole of the Revolution, and was the origin of

the royalist conspiracies and insurrections in various
departments which the Convention had such trouble

to suppress. The royalist faith had disappeared in

Paris, where the weakness of the king was too

plainly visible; but in the provinces the royal power,

representing God on earth, still retained its prestige.

The royalist sentiments of the people must
have been deeply rooted to survive the guillotine.

The royalist movements persisted, indeed, during

the whole of the Revolution, and were accentuated
under the Directory, when forty-nine departments

sent royalist deputies to Paris, which provoked the

Directory to the coup d'etat of Fructidor.

This monarchical-feeling, with difficulty
repressed by the Revolution, contributed to the

success of Bonaparte when he came to occupy the
throne of the ancient kings, and in great measure to

re-establish the ancien regime.


CHAPTER III MENTAL ANARCHY AT THE TIME

OF THE REVOLUTION AND THE INFLUENCE
ATTRIBUTED TO THE PHILOSOPHERS

1. Origin and Propagation of Revolutionary
Ideas.

The outward life of men in every age is
moulded upon an inward life consisting of a

framework of traditions, sentiments, and moral
influences which direct their conduct and maintain

certain fundamental notions which they accept
without discussion.

Let the resistance of this social framework
weaken, and ideas which could have had no force

before will germinate and develop. Certain theories

whose success was enormous at the time of the

Revolution would have encountered an impregnable

wall two centuries earlier.

The aim of these considerations is to recall

to the reader the fact that the outward events of
revolutions are always a consequence of invisible
transformations which have slowly gone forward in

men's minds. Any profound study of a revolution

necessitates a study of the mental soil upon which
the ideas that direct its course have to germinate.

Generally slow in the extreme, the evolution
of ideas is often invisible for a whole generation. Its

extent can only be grasped by comparing the
mental condition of the same social classes at the

two extremities of the curve which the mind has
followed. To realise the different conceptions of

royalty entertained by educated men under Louis
XIV. and Louis XVI., we must compare the political

theories of Bossuet and Turgot.

Bossuet expressed the general conceptions

of his time concerning the absolute monarchy when

he based the authority of a Government upon the

will of God, ``sole judge of the actions of kings,
always irresponsible before men.'' Religious faith

was then as strong as the monarchical faith from

which it seemed inseparable, and no philosopher
could have shaken it.

The writings of the reforming ministers of

Louis XVI., those of Turgot, for instance, are

animated by quite another spirit. Of the Divine right
of kings there is hardly a word, and the rights of the

peoples begin to be clearly defined.
Many events had contributed to prepare for

such an evolution-- unfortunate wars, famines,
imposts, general poverty at the end of the reign of

Louis XV., &c. Slowly destroyed, respect for
monarchical authority was replaced by a mental

revolt which was ready to manifest itself as soon as
occasion should arise.

When once the mental framework

commences to crumble the end comes rapidly. This

is why at the time of the Revolution ideas were so

quickly propagated which were by no means new,

but which until then had exerted no influence, as
they had not fallen on fruitful ground.

Yet the ideas which were then so attractive

and effectual had 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, `àre 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. `Ìt 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 Revolution--Their 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 `à 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:--

`Ìf 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

government--republican, monarchical, and despotic-
-he 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 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, `àre 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, `ìs

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 the plebeian

man as naturally good, affectionate, grateful, and

always ready to listen to reason.

The speeches delivered by members of the

Assembly show how profound were these illusions.
When the peasants began to burn the chateaux they

were greatly astonished, and addressed them in

sentimental harangues, praying them to cease, in
order not to ``give pain to their good king,'' and

adjured them ``to surprise him by their virtues.''

2. Illusions respecting the Possibility of

separating Man from his Past and the Power of
Transformation attributed to the Law.

One of the principles which served as a
foundation for the revolutionary institutions was that

man may readily be cut off from his past, and that a
society may be re-made in all its parts by means of

institutions. Persuaded in the light of reason that,
except for the primitive ages which were to serve as

models, the past represented an inheritance of
errors and superstitions, the legislators of the day

resolved to break entirely with that past.
The better to emphasise their intention, they

founded a new era, transformed the calendar, and

changed the names of the months and seasons.

Supposing all men to be alike, they thought

they could legislate for the human race. Condorcet

imagined that he was expressing an evident truth

when he said: `À good law must be good for all
men, just as a geometrical proposition is true for
all.''

The theorists of the Revolution never

perceived, behind the world of visible things, the
secret springs which moved them. A century of

biological progress was needed to show how
grievous were their mistakes, and how wholly a

being of whatever species depends on its past.
With the influence of the past, the reformers

of the Revolution were always clashing, without ever
understanding it. They wanted to annihilate it, but

were annihilated by it instead.
The faith of law-makers in the absolute

power of laws and institutions, rudely shaken by the

end of the Revolution, was absolute at its outbreak.

Gregoire said from the tribune of the Constituent

Assembly, without provoking the least

astonishment: ``We could if we would change
religion, but we do not want to.'' We know that

they did want to later, and we know how miserably

their attempt failed.
Yet the Jacobins had in their hands all the

elements of success. Thanks to the completest of

tyrannies, all obstacles were removed, and the laws

which it pleased them to impose were always
accepted. After ten years of violence, of destruction

and burning and pillage and massacre and general
upheaval, their impotence was revealed so

startlingly that they fell into universal reprobation.
The dictator then invoked by the whole of France

was obliged to re-establish the greater part of that
which had been destroyed.

The attempt of the Jacobins to re-fashion
society in the name of pure reason constitutes an

experiment of the highest interest. Probably

mankind will never have occasion to repeat it on so

vast a scale.

Although the lesson was a terrible one, it

does not seem to have been sufficient for a
considerable class of minds, since even in our days

we hear Socialists propose to rebuild society from

top to bottom according to their chimerical plans.

3. Illusions respecting the Theoretical Value of

the great Revolutionary Principles.
The fundamental principles on which the

Revolution was based in order to create a new
dispensation are contained in the Declarations of

Rights which were formulated successively in 1789,
1793, and 1795. All three Declarations agree in

proclaiming that ``the principle of sovereignty
resides in the nation.''

For the rest, the three Declarations differ on
several points, notably in the matter of equality.

That of 1789 simply states (Article 1): ``Men are
born and remain free and having equal rights.''

That of 1793 goes farther, and assures us (Article

3):

`Àll men are equal by nature.'' That of

1795 is more modest and says (Article 3):

`Èquality consists in the law being the same for

all.'' Besides this, having mentioned rights, the
third Declaration considers it useful to speak of
duties. Its morality is simply that of the Gospel.

Article 2 says: `Àll the duties of a man and a

citizen derive from these two principles engraved on
all hearts by nature: do not do unto others that

which you would not they should do unto you; do
constantly unto others the good you would wish to

receive from them.''
The essential portions of these

proclamations, the only portions which have really
survived, were those relating to equality and

popular sovereignty.
Despite the weakness of its rational

meaning, the part played by the Republican device,

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, was considerable.

This magic formula, which is still left

engraven on many of our walls until it shall be

engraven on our hearts, has really possessed the
supernatural power attributed to certain words by

the old sorcerers.

Thanks to the new hopes excited by its
promises, its power of expansion was considerable.

Thousands of men lost their lives for it. Even in our

days, when a revolution breaks out in any part of

the world, the same formula is always invoked.
Its choice was happy in the extreme. It

belongs to the category of indefinite dream-evoking
sentences, which every one is free to interpret

according to his own desires, hatreds, and hopes.
In matters of faith the real sense of words matters

very little; it is the meaning attached to them that
makes their importance.

Of the three principles of the revolutionary
device, equality was most fruitful of consequences.

We shall see in another part of this book that it is

almost the only one which still survives, and is still

productive of effects.

It was certainly not the Revolution that

introduced the idea of equality into the world.
Without going back even to the Greek republics, we

may remark that the theory of equality was taught

in the clearest fashion by Christianity and Islamism.
All men, subjects of the one God, were equal before

Him, and judged solely according to their merits.

The dogma of the equality of souls before God was

an essential dogma with Mohammedans as well as
with Christians.

But to proclaim a principle is not enough to
secure its observation. The Christian Church soon

renounced its theoretical equality, and the men of
the Revolution only remembered it in their

speeches.
The sense of the term `èquality'' varies

according to the persons using it. It often conceals
sentiments very contrary to its real sense, and then

represents the imperious need of having no one

above one, joined to the no less lively desire to feel

above others. With the Jacobins of the Revolution,

as with those of our days, the word `èquality''

simply involves a jealous hatred of all superiority.
To efface superiority, such men pretend to unify

manners, customs, and situations. All despotisms

but that exercised by themselves seem odious.
Not being able to avoid the natural

inequalities, they deny them.

The second Declaration of Rights, that of

1793, affirms, contrary to the evidence, that `àll
men are equal by nature.''

It would seem that in many of the men of
the Revolution the ardent desire for equality merely

concealed an intense need of inequalities. Napoleon
was obliged to re-establish titles of nobility and

decorations for their benefit. Having shown that it
was among the most rabid revolutionists that he

found the most docile instruments of domination,
Taine continues:-- ``Suddenly, through all their

preaching of liberty and equality, appeared their

authoritative instincts, their need of commanding,

even as subordinates, and also, in most cases, an

appetite for money or for pleasure. Between the

delegate of the Committee of Public Safety and the
minister, prefect, or subprefect of the Empire the

difference is small: it is the same man under the

two costumes, first en carmagnole, then in the
braided coat.''
The dogma of equality had as its first

consequence the proclamation of popular

sovereignty by the bourgeoisie. This sovereignty
remained otherwise highly theoretical during the

whole Revolution.
The principle of authority was the lasting

legacy of the Revolution. The two terms ``liberty''
and ``fraternity'' which accompany it in the

republican device had never much influence. We
may even say that they had none during the

Revolution and the Empire, but merely served to
decorate men's speeches.

Their influence was hardly more

considerable later. Fraternity was never practised

and the peoples have never cared much for liberty.

To-day our working-men have completely

surrendered it to their unions.
To sum up: although the Republican motto

has been little applied it has exerted a very great

influence. Of the French Revolution practically
nothing has remained in the popular mind but the

three celebrated words which sum up its gospel, and

which its armies spread over Europe.


BOOK II THE RATIONAL,

AFFECTIVE, MYSTIC, AND COLLECTIVE
INFLUENCES ACTIVE DURING THE

REVOLUTION


CHAPTER I THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
1. Psychological Influences active during the

French Revolution.
The genesis of the French Revolution, as

well as its duration, was conditioned by elements of
a rational, affective, mystic, and collective nature,

each category of which was ruled by a different
logic. It is, as I have said, because they have not

been able to dissociate the respective influences of
these factors that so many historians have

interpreted this period so indifferently
The rational element usually invoked as an

explanation exerted in reality but a very slight

influence. It prepared the way for the Revolution,

but maintained it only at the outset, while it was still

exclusively middle-class. Its action was manifested

by many measures of the time, such as the

proposals to reform the taxes, the suppression of
the privileges of a useless nobility, &c.
As soon as the Revolution reached the

people, the influence of the rational elements

speedily vanished before that of the affective and
collective elements. As for the mystic elements, the

foundation of the revolutionary faith, they made the
army fanatical and propagated the new belief

throughout the world.
We shall see these various elements as they

appeared in events and in the psychology of
individuals. Perhaps the most important was the

mystic element. The Revolution cannot be clearly
comprehended--we cannot repeat it too often--

unless it is considered as the formation of a religious

belief. What I have said elsewhere of all beliefs

applies equally to the Revolution. Referring, for

instance, to the chapter on the Reformation, the

reader will see that it presents more than one
analogy with the Revolution.

Having wasted so much time in

demonstrating the slight rational value of beliefs,
the philosophers are to-day beginning to understand

their function better. They have been forced to

admit that these are the only factors which possess

an influence sufficient to transform all the elements
of a civilisation.

They impose themselves on men apart from
reason and have the power to polarise men's

thoughts and feelings in one direction. Pure reason
had never such a power, for men were never

impassioned by reason.
The religious form rapidly assumed by the

Revolution explains its power of expansion and the
prestige which it possessed and has retained.

Few historians have understood that this

great monument ought to be regarded as the

foundation of a new religion. The penetrating mind

of Tocqueville, I believe, was the first to perceive as

much.
``The French Revolution,'' he wrote, ``was

a political revolution which operated in the manner

of and assumed something of the aspect of a
religious revolution. See by what regular and

characteristic traits it finally resembled the latter:

not only did it spread itself far and wide like a

religious revolution, but, like the latter, it spread
itself by means of preaching and propaganda. A

political revolution which inspires proselytes, which
is preached as passionately to foreigners as it is

accomplished at home: consider what a novel
spectacle was this.''

The religious side of the Revolution being
granted, the accompanying fury and devastation are

easily explained. History shows us that such are
always the accompaniments of the birth of religions.

The Revolution was therefore certain to provoke the

violence and intolerance the triumphant deities

demand from their adepts. It overturned all Europe

for twenty years, ruined France, caused the death of

millions of men, and cost the country several
invasions: but it is as a rule only at the cost of such

catastrophes that a people can change its beliefs.

Although the mystic element is always the
foundation of beliefs, certain affective and rational

elements are quickly added thereto. A belief thus

serves to group sentiments and passions and

interests which belong to the affective domain.
Reason then envelops the whole, seeking to justify

events in which, however, it played no part
whatever.

At the moment of the Revolution every one,
according to his aspirations, dressed the new belief

in a different rational vesture. The peoples saw in it
only the suppression of the religious and political

despotisms and hierarchies under which they had so
often suffered. Writers like Goethe and thinkers like

Kant imagined that they saw in it the triumph of

reason. Foreigners like Humboldt came to France

``to breathe the air of liberty and to assist at the

obsequies of despotism.''
These intellectual illusions did not last long.
The evolution of the drama soon revealed the true

foundations of the dream.

2. Dissolution of the Ancien Regime. The
assembling of the States General.

Before they are realised in action,

revolutions are sketched out in men's thoughts.

Prepared by the causes already studied, the French
Revolution commenced in reality with the reign of

Louis XVI. More discontented and censorious every
day, the middle classes added claim to claim.

Everybody was calling for reform.
Louis XVI. thoroughly understood the utility

of reform, but he was too weak to impose it on the
clergy and the nobility. He could not even retain his

reforming ministers, Malesherbes and Turgot. What
with famines and increased taxation, the poverty of

all classes increased, and the huge pensions drawn

by the Court formed a shocking contrast to the

general distress.

The notables convoked to attempt to

remedy the financial situation refused a system of
equal taxation, and granted only insignificant

reforms which the Parliament did not even consent

to register. It had to be dissolved. The provincial
Parliaments made common cause with that of Paris,

and were also dissolved. But they led opinion, and

in all parts of France promoted the demand for a

meeting of the States General, which had not been
convoked for nearly two hundred years.

The decision was taken: 5,000,000
Frenchmen, of whom 100,000 were ecclesiastics and

150,000 nobles, sent their representatives. There
were in all 1,200 deputies, of whom 578 were of the

Third Estate, consisting chiefly of magistrates,
advocates, and physicians. Of the 300 deputies of

the clergy, 200, of plebeian origin, threw in their lot
with the Third Estate against the nobility and clergy.

From the first sessions a psychological

conflict broke out between the deputies of different

social conditions and (therefore) different

mentalities. The magnificent costumes of the

privileged deputies contrasted in a humiliating
fashion with the sombre fashions of the Third

Estate.
At the first session the members of the
nobility and the clergy were covered, according to

the prerogatives of their class, before the king.

Those of the Third Estate wished to imitate them,

but the privileged members protested. On the
following day more protests of wounded self-love

were heard. The deputies of the Third Estate invited
those of the nobility and the clergy who were sitting

in separate halls to join them for the verification of
their powers. The nobles refused. The negotiations

lasted more than a month. Finally, the deputies of
the Third Estate, on the proposition of the Abbe

Sieyes, considering that they represented 95 per
cent. of the nation, declared themselves constituted

as a National Assembly. From that moment the

Revolution pursued its course.

3. The Constituent Assembly.

The power of a political assembly resides,

above all, in the weakness of its adversaries.

Astonished by the slight resistance encountered,

and carried away by the ascendancy of a handful of

orators, the Constituent Assembly, from its earliest
sessions, spoke and acted as a sovereign body.

Notably it arrogated to itself the power of decreeing

imposts, a serious encroachment upon the

prerogatives of the royal power.
The resistance of Louis XVI. was feeble

enough. He simply had the hall in which the States
assembled closed. The deputies then met in the hall

of the tennis-court, and took the oath that they
would not separate until the Constitution of the

kingdom was an established fact.
The majority of the deputies of the clergy

went with them. The king revoked the decision of
the Assembly, and ordered the deputies to retire.

The Marquis de Dreux-Breze, the Grand Master of

Ceremonies, having invited them to obey the order

of the sovereign, the President of the Assembly

declared ``that the nation assembled cannot

receive orders,'' and Mirabeau replied to the envoy
of the sovereign that, being united by the will of the

people, the Assembly would only withdraw at the

point of the bayonet. Again the king gave way.
On the 9th of June the meeting of deputies

took the title of the Constituent Assembly. For the

first time in centuries the king was forced to

recognise the existence of a new power, formerly
ignored--that of the people, represented by its

elected representatives. The absolute monarchy
was no more.

Feeling himself more and more seriously
threatened, Louis XVI. summoned to Versailles a

number of regiments composed of foreign
mercenaries. The Assembly demanded the

withdrawal of the troops.
The king refused, and dismissed Necker,

replacing him by the Marshal de Broglie, reputed to

be an extremely authoritative person.

But the Assembly had able supporters.

Camille Desmoulins and others harangued the crowd

in all directions, calling it to the defence of liberty.
They sounded the tocsin, organised a militia of

12,000 men, took muskets and cannon from the

Invalides, and on the 14th of July the armed bands
marched upon the Bastille. The fortress, barely

defended, capitulated in a few hours. Seven

prisoners were found within it, of whom one was an

idiot and four were accused of forgery.
The Bastille, the prison of many victims of

arbitrary power, symbolised the royal power to
many minds; but the people who demolished it had

not suffered by it. Scarcely any but members of the
nobility were imprisoned there.

The influence exercised by the taking of this
fortress has continued to our days. Serious

historians like M. Rambaud assure us that ``the
taking of the Bastille is a culminating fact in the

history, not of France only but of all Europe, and

inaugurates a new epoch in the history of the

world.''

Such credulity is a little excessive. The

importance of the event lay simply in the
psychological fact that for the first time the people

received an obvious proof of the weakness of an

authority which had lately been formidable.
When the principle of authority is injured in

the public mind it dissolves very rapidly. What

might not one demand of a king who could not

defend his principal fortress against popular attacks?
The master regarded as all-powerful had ceased to

be so.
The taking of the Bastille was the beginning

of one of those phenomena of mental contagion
which abound in the history of the Revolution. The

foreign mercenary troops, although they could
scarcely be interested in the movement, began to

show symptoms of mutiny. Louis XVI. was reduced
to accepting their disbandment. He recalled Necker,

went to the Hotel de Ville, sanctioned by his

presence the accomplished facts, and accepted from

La Fayette, commandant of the National Guard, the

new cockade of red, white, and blue which allied the

colours of Paris to those of the king.
Although the riot which ended in the taking

of the Bastille can by no means be regarded as `à

culminating fact in history,'' it does mark the precise
moment of the commencement of popular

government. The armed people thenceforth

intervened daily in the deliberations of the

revolutionary Assemblies, and seriously influenced
their conduct.

This intervention of the people in conformity
with the dogma of its sovereignty has provoked the

respectful admiration of many historians of the
Revolution. Even a superficial study of the

psychology of crowds would speedily have shown
them that the mystic entity which they call the

people was merely translating the will of a few
leaders. It is not correct to say that the people took

the Bastille, attacked the Tuileries, invaded the

Convention, &c., but that certain leaders--generally

by means of the clubs--united armed bands of the

populace, which they led against the Bastille, the

Tuileries, &c. During the Revolution the same
crowds attacked or defended the most contrary

parties, according to the leaders who happened to

be at their heads. A crowd never has any opinion
but that of its leaders.

Example constituting one of the most potent

forms of suggestion, the taking of the Bastille was

inevitably followed by the destruction of other
fortresses. Many chateaux were regarded as so

many little Bastilles, and in order to imitate the
Parisians who had destroyed theirs the peasants

began to burn them. They did so with the greater
fury because the seigneurial homes contained the

titles of feudal dues. It was a species of Jacquerie.
The Constituent Assembly, so proud and

haughty towards the king, was, like all the
revolutionary assemblies which followed it,

extremely pusillanimous before the people.

Hoping to put an end to the disorders of the

night of August 4th, it voted, on the proposition of a

member of the nobility, the Comte de Noailles, the

abolition of seigneurial rights. Although this
measure suppressed at one stroke the privileges of

the nobles, it was voted with tears and embracings.

Such accesses of sentimental enthusiasm are readily
explained when we recall how contagious emotion is

in a crowd, above all in an assembly oppressed by

fear.

If the renunciation of their rights had been
effected by the nobility a few years earlier, the

Revolution would doubtless have been avoided, but
it was now too late. To give way only when one is

forced to do so merely increases the demands of
those to whom one yields. In politics one should

always look ahead and give way long before one is
forced to do so.

Louis XVI. hesitated for two months to ratify
the decisions voted by the Assembly on the night of

the 4th of August. He had retired to Versailles. The

leaders sent thither a band of 7,000 or 8,000 men

and women of the people, assuring them that the

royal residence contained great stores of bread.

The railings of the palace were forced, some of the
bodyguard were killed, and the king and all his

family were led back to Paris in the midst of a

shrieking crowd, many of whom bore on the ends of
their pikes the heads of the soldiers massacred.

The dreadful journey lasted six hours. These events

constituted what are known as the ``days'' of

October.
The popular power increased, and in reality

the king, like the whole assembly, was henceforth in
the hands of the people--that is, at the mercy of the

clubs and their leaders. This popular power was to
prevail for nearly ten years, and the Revolution was

to be almost entirely its work.
While proclaiming that the people

constituted the only sovereign, the Assembly was
greatly embarrassed by riots which went far beyond

its theoretical expectations. It had supposed that

order would be restored while it fabricated a

Constitution destined to assure the eternal

happiness of mankind.
We know that during the whole duration of
the Revolution one of the chief occupations of the

assemblies was to make, unmake, and remake

Constitutions. The theorists attributed to them
then, as they do to-day, the power of transforming

society; the Assembly, therefore, could not neglect

its task. In the meantime it published a solemn

Declaration of the Rights of Man which summarised
its principles.

The Constitution, proclamations,
declarations, and speeches had not the slightest

effect on the popular movements, nor on the
dissentients who daily increased in number in the

heart of the Assembly. The latter became more and
more subjected to the ascendancy of the advanced

party, which was supported by the clubs. Danton,
Camille Desmoulins, and later Marat and Hebert,

violently excited the populace by their harangues

and their journals. The Assembly was rapidly going

down the slope that leads to extremes.

During all these disorders the finances of the

country were not improving. Finally convinced that
philanthropic speeches would not alter their

lamentable condition, and seeing that bankruptcy

threatened, the Assembly decreed, on the 2nd of
November, 1789, the confiscation of the goods of

the Church. Their revenues, consisting of the tithes

collected from the faithful, amounted to some

L8,000,000, and their value was estimated at about
L120,000,000. They were divided among some

hundreds of prelates, Court abbes, &c., who owned
a quarter of all France. These goods, henceforth

entitled is ``national domains,'' formed the
guarantee of the assignats, the first issue of which

was for 400,000,000 francs (L16,000,000 sterling).
The public accepted them at the outset, but they

multiplied so under the Directory and the
Convention, which issued 45,000,000,000 francs in

this form (L1,800,000,000 sterling), that an

assignat of 100 livres was finally worth only a few

halfpence.

Stimulated by his advisers, the feeble Louis

attempted in vain to struggle against the decrees of
the Assembly by refusing to sanction them.

Under the influence of the daily suggestions

of the leaders and the power of mental contagion
the revolutionary movement was spreading

everywhere independently of the Assembly and

often even against it.

In the towns and villages revolutionary
municipalities were instituted, protected by the local

National Guards. Those of neighbouring towns
commenced to make mutual arrangements to

defend themselves should need arise. Thus
federations were formed, which were soon rolled

into one; this sent 14,000 National Guards to Paris,
who assembled on the Champ-de-Mars on the 14th

of July, 1790. There the king swore to maintain the
Constitution decreed by the National Assembly.

Despite this vain oath it became more

evident every day that no agreement was possible

between the hereditary principles of the monarchy

and those proclaimed by the Assembly.

Feeling himself completely powerless, the
king thought only of flight. Arrested at Varennes

and brought back a prisoner to Paris, he was shut

up in the Tuileries. The Assembly, although still
extremely royalist, suspended him from power, and

decided to assume the sole charge of the

government.

Never did sovereign find himself in a
position so difficult as that of Louis at the time of his

flight. The genius of a Richelieu would hardly have
extricated him. The only element of defence on

which he could have relied had from the beginning
absolutely failed him.

During the whole duration of the Constituent
Assembly the immense majority of Frenchmen and

of the Assembly remained royalist, so that had the
sovereign accepted a liberal monarchy he could

perhaps have remained in power. It would seem

that Louis had little to promise in order to come to

an agreement with the Assembly.

Little, perhaps, but with his structure of

mind that little was strictly impossible. All the
shades of his forbears would have risen up in front

of him had he consented to modify the mechanism

of the monarchy inherited from so many ancestors.
And even had he attempted to do so, the opposition

of his family, the clergy, the nobles, and the Court

could never have been surmounted. The ancient

castes on which the monarchy rested, the nobility
and the clergy, were then almost as powerful as the

monarch himself. Every time it seemed as though
he might yield to the injunctions of the Assembly it

was because he was constrained to do so by force,
and to attempt to gain time. His appeals to alien

Powers represented the resolution of a desperate
man who had seen all his natural defences fail him.

He, and especially the queen, entertained
the strangest illusions as to the possible assistance

of Austria, for centuries the rival of France. If

Austria indolently consented to come to his aid, it

was only in the hope of receiving a great reward.

Mercy gave him to understand that the payment

expected consisted of Alsace, the Alps, and Navarre.
The leaders of the clubs, finding the

Assembly too royalist, sent the people against it. A

petition was signed, inviting the Assembly to
convoke a new constituent power to proceed to the

trial of Louis XVI.

Monarchical in spite of all, and finding that

the Revolution was assuming a character far too
demagogic, the Assembly resolved to defend itself

against the actions of the people. A battalion of the
National Guard, commanded by La Fayette, was

sent to the Champ-de-Mars, where the crowd was
assembled, to disperse it. Fifty of those present

were killed.
The Assembly did not long persist in its

feeble resistance. Extremely fearful of the people, it
increased its arrogance towards the king, depriving

him every day of some part of his prerogatives and

authority. He was now scarcely more than a mere

official obliged to execute the wishes of others.

The Assembly had imagined that it would be

able to exercise the authority of which it had
deprived the king, but such a task was infinitely

above its resources. A power so divided is always

weak. `Ì know nothing more terrible,'' said
Mirabeau, ``than the sovereign authority of six

hundred persons.''

Having flattered itself that it could combine

in itself all the powers of the State, and exercise
them as Louis XVI. had done, the Assembly very

soon exercised none whatever.
As its authority failed anarchy increased.

The popular leaders continually stirred up the
people. Riot and insurrection became the sole

power. Every day the Assembly was invaded by
rowdy and imperious delegations which operated by

means of threats and demands.
All these popular movements, which the

Assembly, under the stress of fear, invariably

obeyed, had nothing spontaneous about them.

They simply represented the manifestations of new

powers--the clubs and the Commune--which had

been set up beside the Assembly.
The most powerful of these clubs was the

Jacobin, which had quickly created more than five

hundred branches in the country, all of which were
under the orders of the central body. Its influence

remained preponderant during the whole duration of

the Revolution. It was the master of the Assembly,

and then of France, its only rival the insurrectionary
Commune, whose power was exercised only in Paris.

The weakness of the national Assembly and
all its failures had made it extremely unpopular. It

became conscious of this, and, feeling that it was
every day more powerless, decided to hasten the

creation of the new Constitution in order that it
might dissolve. Its last action, which was tactless

enough, was to decree that no member of the
Constituent Assembly should be elected to the

Legislative Assembly. The members of the latter

were thus deprived of the experience acquired by

their predecessors.

The Constitution was completed on the 3rd

of September, 1791, and accepted on the 13th by
the king, to whom the Assembly had restored his

powers.
This Constitution organised a representative
Government, delegating the legislative power to

deputies elected by the people, and the executive

power to the king, whose right of veto over the

decrees of the Assembly was recognised. New
departmental divisions were substituted for the old

provinces. The imposts were abolished, and
replaced by direct and indirect taxes, which are still

in force.
The Assembly, which had just altered the

territorial divisions and overthrown all the old social
organisation, thought itself powerful enough to

transform the religious organisation of the country
also. It claimed notably that the members of the

clergy should be elected by the people, and should

be thus withdrawn from the influence of their

supreme head, the Pope.

This civil constitution of the clergy was the

origin of religious struggles and persecutions which
lasted until the days of the Consulate. Two-thirds of

the priests refused the oath demanded of them.

During the three years which represented
the life of the Constituent Assembly the Revolution

had produced considerable results. The principal

result was perhaps the beginning of the

transference to the Third Estate of the riches of the
privileged classes. In this way while interests were

created to be defended fervent adherents were
raised up to the new regime. A Revolution

supported by the gratification of acquired appetites
is bound to be powerful. The Third Estate, which

had supplanted the nobles, and the peasants, who
had bought the national domains, would readily

understand that the restoration of the ancien regime
would despoil them of all their advantages. The

energetic defence of the Revolution was merely the

defence of their own fortunes.

This is why we see, during part of the

Revolution, nearly half the departments vainly rising

against the despotism that crushed them. The
Republicans triumphed over all opposition. They

were extremely powerful in that they had to defend,

not only a new ideal, but new material interests.
We shall see that the influence of these two factors

lasted during the whole of the Revolution, and

contributed powerfully to the establishment of the

Empire.


CHAPTER II THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
1. Political Events during the Life of the

Legislative Assembly.
Before examining the mental characteristics

of the Legislative Assembly let us briefly sum up the
considerable political events which marked its short

year's life. They naturally played an important part
in respect of its psychological manifestations.

Extremely monarchical, the Legislative
Assembly had no more idea than its predecessor of

destroying the monarchy. The king appeared to it
to be slightly suspect, but it still hoped to be able to

retain him on the throne.

Unhappily for him, Louis was incessantly

begging for intervention from abroad. Shut up in

the Tuileries, defended only by his Swiss Guards,

the timid sovereign was drifting among contrary

influences. He subsidised journals intended to
modify public opinion, but the obscure ``penny-a-
liners'' who edited them knew nothing of acting on

the mind of the crowd. Their only means of

persuasion was to menace with the gallows all the
partisans of the Revolution, and to predict the

invasion of France by an army which would rescue
the king.

Royalty no longer counted on anything but
the foreign Courts. The nobles were emigrating.

Prussia, Austria, and Russia were threatening France
with a war of invasion. The Court favoured their

lead. To the coalition of the three kings against
France the Jacobin Club proposed to oppose a

league of peoples. The Girondists were then, with

the Jacobins, at the head of the revolutionary

movement. They incited the masses to arm

themselves--600,000 volunteers were equipped.

The Court accepted a Girondist minister. Dominated
by him, Louis XVI. was obliged to propose to the

Assembly a war against Austria. It was immediately

agreed to.
In declaring war the king was not sincere.

The queen revealed the French plans of campaign

and the secret deliberations of the Council to the

Austrians.
The beginnings of the struggle were

disastrous. Several columns of troops, attacked by
panic, disbanded. Stimulated by the clubs, and

persuaded--justly, for that matter--that the king
was conspiring with the enemies of France, the

population of the faubourgs rose in insurrection. Its
leaders, the Jacobins, and above all Danton, sent to

the Tuileries on the 20th of June a petition
threatening the king with revocation. It then

invaded the Tuileries, heaping invectives on the

sovereign.

Fatality impelled Louis toward his tragic

destiny. While the threats of the Jacobins against

royalty had roused many of the departments to
indignation, it was learned that a Prussian army had

arrived on the frontiers of Lorraine.

The hope of the king and queen respecting
the help to be obtained from abroad was highly

chimerical. Marie-Antoinette suffered from an

absolute illusion as to the psychology of the Austrian

and the French peoples. Seeing France terrorised
by a few energumens, she supposed that it would

be equally easy to terrify the Parisians, and by
means of threats to lead them back under the king's

authority. Inspired by her, Fersen undertook to
publish the manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick,

threatening Paris with ``total subversion if the royal
family were molested.''

The effect produced was diametrically
opposite to that intended. The manifesto aroused

indignation against the monarch, who was regarded

as an accomplice, and increased his unpopularity.

From that day he was marked for the scaffold.

Carried away by Danton, the delegates of

the sections installed themselves at the Hotel de
Ville as an insurrectionary Commune, which arrested

the commandant of the National Guard, who was

devoted to the king, sounded the tocsin, equipped
the National Guard, and on the 10th of August

hurled them, with the populace, against the

Tuileries. The regiments called in by Louis

disbanded themselves. Soon none were left to
defend him but his Swiss and a few gentlemen.

Nearly all were killed. Left alone, the king took
refuge with the Assembly. The crowds demanded

his denouncement. The Legislative Assembly
decreed his suspension and left a future Assembly,

the Convention, to decide upon his fate.
2. Mental Characteristics of the Legislative

Assembly.
The Legislative Assembly, formed of new

men, presented quite a special interest from the

psychological point of view. Few assemblies have

offered in such a degree the characteristics of the

political collectivity.

It comprised seven hundred and fifty

deputies, divided into pure royalists, constitutional

royalists, republicans, Girondists, and Montagnards.

Advocates and men of letters formed the majority.
It also contained, but in smaller numbers, superior

officers, priests, and a very few scientists.

The philosophical conceptions of the

members of this Assembly seem rudimentary
enough. Many were imbued with Rousseau's idea of

a return to a state of nature. But all, like their
predecessors, were dominated more especially by

recollections of Greek and Latin antiquity. Cato,
Brutus, Gracchus, Plutarch, Marcus Aurelius, and

Plato, continually evoked, furnished the images of
their speech. When the orator wished to insult Louis

XVI. he called him Caligula.
In hoping to destroy tradition they were

revolutionaries, but in claiming to return to a remote

past they showed themselves extremely

reactionary.

For the rest, all these theories had very little

influence on their conduct. Reason was continually
figuring in their speeches, but never in their actions.

These were always dominated by those affective

and mystic elements whose potency we have so
often demonstrated.
The psychological characteristics of the

Legislative Assembly were those of the Constituent

Assembly, but were greatly accentuated. They may
be summed up in four words: impressionability,

mobility, timidity, and weakness.
This mobility and impressionability are

revealed in the constant variability of their conduct.
One day they exchange noisy invective and blows.

On the following day we see them ``throwing
themselves into one another's arms with torrents of

tears.'' They eagerly applaud an address
demanding the punishment of those who have

petitioned for the king's dethronement, and the

same day accord the honours of the session to a

delegation which has come to demand his downfall.

The pusillanimity and weakness of the

Assembly in the face of threats was extreme.
Although royalist it voted the suspension of the

king, and on the demand of the Commune delivered

him, with his family, to be imprisoned in the
Temple,
Thanks to its weakness, it was as incapable

as the Constituent Assembly of exercising any

power, and allowed itself to be dominated by the
Commune and the clubs, which were directed by

such influential leaders as Hebert, Tallien, Rossignol,
Marat, Robespierre, &c.

Until Thermidor, 1794, the insurrectionary
Commune constituted the chief power in the State,

and behaved precisely as if it had been charged with
the government of Paris.

It was the Commune that demanded the
imprisonment of Louis XVI. in the tower of the

Temple, when the Assembly wished to imprison him

in the palace of the Luxembourg. It was the

Commune again that filled the prisons with

suspects, and then ordered them to be killed.

We know with what refinements of cruelty a
handful of some 150 bandits, paid at the rate of 24

livres a day, and directed by a few members of the

Commune, exterminated some 1,200 persons in
four days. This crime was known as the massacre

of September. The mayor of Paris, Petion, received

the band of assassins with respect, and gave them

drink. A few Girondists protested somewhat, but
the Jacobins were silent.

The terrorised Assembly affected at first to
ignore the massacres, which were encouraged by

several of its more influential deputies, notably
Couthon and Billaud-Varenne. When at last it

decided to condemn them it was without attempting
to prevent their continuation.

Conscious of its impotence, the Legislative
Assembly dissolved itself a fortnight later in order to

give way to the Convention. Its work was obviously

disastrous, not in intention but in fact. Royalist, it

abandoned the monarchy; humanitarian, it allowed

the massacres of September; pacific, it pushed

France into a formidable war, thus showing that a
weak Government always ends by bringing ruin

upon its country.

The history of the two previous
revolutionary Assemblies proves once more to what

point events carry within them their inevitable

consequences. They constitute a train of necessities

of which we can sometimes choose the first, but
which then evolve without consulting us. We are

free to make a decision, but powerless to avert its
consequences.

The first measures of the Constituent
Assembly were rational and voluntary, but the

results which followed were beyond all will or reason
or foresight.

Which of the men of 1789 would have
ventured to desire or predict the death of Louis

XVI., the wars of La Vendee, the Terror, the

permanent guillotine and the final anarchy, or the

ensuing return to tradition and order, guided by the

iron hand of a soldier?

In the development of events which ensued
from the early actions of the revolutionary

Assemblies the most striking, perhaps, was the rise

and development of the government of the crowd--
of mob rule.
Behind the facts which we have been

considering--the taking of the Bastille, the invasion

of Versailles, the massacres of September, the
attack on the Tuileries, the murder of the Swiss

Guards, and the downfall and imprisonment of the
king--we can readily perceive the laws affecting the

psychology of crowds and their leaders.
We shall now see that the power of the

multitude will progressively increase, overcome all
other powers, and finally replace them.


CHAPTER III THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE

CONVENTION
1. The Legend of the Convention.

The history of the Convention is not merely
fertile in psychological documents. It also shows

how powerless the witnesses of any period and even
their immediate successors are to form an exact

idea of the events which they have witnessed, and
the men who have surrounded them.

More than a century has elapsed since the
Revolution, and men are only just beginning to form

judgments concerning this period which, if still often

doubtful enough, are slightly more accurate than of

old.
This happens, not only because new

documents are being drawn from the archives, but

because the legends which enveloped that

sanguinary period in a magical cloud are gradually

vanishing with the passage of time.
Perhaps the most tenacious legend of all

was that which until formerly used to surround the

personages to whom our fathers applied the glorious

epithet, ``the Giants of the Convention.''
The struggles of the Convention against

France in insurrection and Europe in arms produced
such an impression that the heroes of this

formidable struggle seemed to belong to a race of
supermen or Titans.

The epithet ``giant'' seemed justified so
long as the events of the period were confused and

massed together. Regarded as connected when it
was simply simultaneous, the work of the armies

was confounded with that of the Convention. The

glory of the first recoiled upon the second, and

served as an excuse for the hecatombs of the

Terror, the ferocity of the civil war, and the

devastation of France.
Under the penetrating scrutiny of modern

criticism, the heterogeneous mass of events has

been slowly disentangled. The armies of the
Republic have retained their old prestige, but we

have been forced to recognise that the men of the

Convention, absorbed entirely by their intestine

conflicts, had very little to do with their victories. At
the most two or three members of the committees

of the Assembly were concerned with the armies,
and the fact that they were victorious was due,

apart from their numbers and the talents of their
young generals, to the enthusiasm with which a new

faith had inspired them.
In a later chapter, devoted to the

revolutionary armies, we shall see how they
conquered Europe in arms. They set out inspired by

the ideas of liberty and equality which constituted

the new gospel, and once on the frontiers, which

were to keep them so long, they retained a special

mentality, very different from that of the

Government, which they first knew nothing of and
afterwards despised.

Having no part whatever in their victories,

the men of the Convention contented themselves
with legislating at hazard according to the

injunctions of the leaders who directed them, and

who claimed to be regenerating France by means of

the guillotine.
But it was thanks to these valiant armies

that the history of the Convention was transformed
into an apotheosis which affected several

generations with a religious respect which even to-
day is hardly extinct.

Studying in detail the psychology of the
``Giants'' of the Convention, we find their

magnitude shrink very rapidly. They were in
general extremely mediocre. Their most fervent

defenders, such as M. Aulard, are obliged to admit

as much.

This is how M. Aulard puts it in his History of

the French Revolution:--

`Ìt has been said that the generation
which from 1789 to 1799 did such great and terrible

things was a generation of giants, or, to put it more

plainly, that it was a generation more distinguished
than that which preceded it or that which followed.

This is a retrospective illusion. The citizens

who formed the municipal and Jacobin or nationalist

groups by which the Revolution was effected do not
seem to have been superior, either in enlightenment

or in talents, to the Frenchmen of the time of Louis
XV. or of Louis Philippe. Were those exceptionally

gifted whose names history has retained because
they appeared on the stage of Paris, or because

they were the most brilliant orators of the various
revolutionary Assemblies? Mirabeau, up to a certain

point, deserved the title of genius; but as to the
rest-- Robespierre, Danton, Vergniaud--had they

truly more talent, for example, than our modern

orators? In 1793, in the time of the supposed

`giants,' Mme. Roland wrote in her memoirs:

`France was as though drained of men; their dearth

during this revolution is truly surprising; there have
scarcely been any but pigmies.' ''

If after considering the men of the

Convention individually we consider them in a body,
we may say that they did not shine either by

intelligence or by virtue or by courage. Never did a

body of men manifest such pusillanimity. They had

no courage save in their speeches or in respect of
remote dangers. This Assembly, so proud and

threatening in its speech when addressing royalty,
was perhaps the most timid and docile political

collectivity that the world has ever known. We see
it slavishly obedient to the orders of the clubs and

the Commune, trembling before the popular
delegations which invaded it daily, and obeying the

injunctions of the rioters to the point of handing
over to them its most brilliant members. The

Convention affords the world a melancholy

spectacle, voting, at the popular behest, laws so

absurd that it is obliged to annul them as soon as

the rioters have quitted the hall.

Few Assemblies have given proof of such
weakness. When we wish to show how low a

popular Government can fall we have only to point

to the Convention.

2. Results of the Triumph of the Jacobin

Religion
Among the causes that gave the

Convention its special physiognomy, one of the
most important was the definite establishment of a

revolutionary religion. A dogma which was at first
in process of formation was at last finally erected.

This dogma was composed of an aggregate
of somewhat inconsistent elements. Nature, the

rights of man, liberty, equality, the social contract,
hatred of tyrants, and popular sovereignty formed

the articles of a gospel which, to its disciples, was
above discussion. The new truths had found

apostles who were certain of their power, and who

finally, like believers all the world over, sought to

impose them by force. No heed should be taken of

the opinion of unbelievers; they all deserved to be

exterminated.
The hatred of heretics having been always,
as we have seen, in respect of the Reformation, an
irreducible characteristic of great beliefs, we can

readily comprehend the intolerance of the Jacobin

religion.
The history of the Reformation proves also

that the conflict between two allied beliefs is very
bitter. We must not, therefore, be astonished that

in the Convention the Jacobins fought furiously
against the other republicans, whose faith hardly

differed from their own.
The propaganda of the new apostles was

very energetic. To convert the provinces they sent
thither zealous disciples escorted by guillotines. The

inquisitors of the new faith would have no paltering

with error. As Robespierre said, ``The republic is

the destruction of everything that is opposed to it.''

What matter that the country refused to be

regenerated? It should be regenerated despite
itself. ``We will make a cemetery of France,'' said

Carrier, ``rather than fail to regenerate it in our

own way.''
The Jacobin policy derived from the new

faith was very simple. It consisted in a sort of

equalitarian Socialism, directed by a dictatorship

which would brook no opposition.
Of practical ideas consistent with the

economic necessities and the true nature of man,
the theorists who ruled France would have nothing

to say. Speech and the guillotine sufficed them.
Their speeches were childish. ``Never a fact,'' says

Taine, ``nothing but abstractions, strings of
sentences about Nature, reason, the people,

tyrants, liberty: like so many puffed-out balloons
uselessly jostling in space. If we did not know that

it all ended in practical and dreadful results, we

should think they were games of logic, school

exercises, academical demonstrations, ideological

combinations.''
The theories of the Jacobins amounted
practically to an absolute tyranny. To them it

seemed evident that a sovereign State must be

obeyed without discussion by citizens rendered
equal as to conditions and fortune.

The power with which they invested

themselves was far greater than that of the

monarchs who had preceded them. They fixed the
prices of merchandise and arrogated the right to

dispose of the life and property of citizens.
Their confidence in the regenerative virtues

of the revolutionary faith was such that after having
declared war upon kings they declared war upon the

gods. A calendar was established from which the
saints were banished. They created a new divinity,

Reason, whose worship was celebrated in Notre-
Dame, with ceremonies which were in many ways

identical with those of the Catholic faith, upon the

altar of the ``late Holy Virgin.'' This cult lasted until

Robespierre substituted a personal religion of which

he constituted himself the high priest.

The sole masters of France, the Jacobins
and their disciples were able to plunder the country

with impunity, although they were never in the

majority anywhere.
Their numbers are not easy to determine

exactly. We know only that they were very small.

Taine valued them at 5,000 in Paris, among 700,000

inhabitants; in Besancon 300 among 300,000; and
in all France about 300,000.

`À small feudality of brigands, set over a
conquered France,'' according to the words of the

same author, they were able, in spite of their small
numbers, to dominate the country, and this for

several reasons. In the first place, their faith gave
them a considerable strength. Then, because they

represented the Government, and for centuries the
French had obeyed those who were in command.

Finally, because it was believed that to overthrow

them would be to bring back the ancien regime,

which was greatly dreaded by the numerous

purchasers of the national domains. Their tyranny

must have grown frightful indeed to force so many
departments to rise against them.

The first factor of their power was very

important. In the conflict between powerful faiths
and weak faiths victory never falls to the latter. A

powerful faith creates strong wills, which will always

overpower weak wills. That the Jacobins

themselves did finally perish was because their
accumulated violence had bound together thousands

of weak wills whose united weight overbalanced
their own strong wills.

It is true that the Girondists, whom the
Jacobins persecuted with so much hatred, had also

well-established beliefs, but in the struggle which
ensued their education told against them, together

with their respect for certain traditions and the
rights of others, scruples which did not in the least

trouble their adversaries.

``The majority of the sentiments of the

Girondists,'' writes Emile Ollivier, ``were delicate

and generous; those of the Jacobin mob were low,

gross, and brutal. The name of Vergniaud,
compared with that of the `divine' Marat, measures

a gulf which nothing could span.''

Dominating the Convention at the outset by
the superiority of their talents and their eloquence,

the Girondists soon fell under the domination of the

Montagnards--worthless energumens, who carried

little weight, but were always active, and who knew
how to excite the passions of the populace. It was

violence and not talent that impressed the
Assemblies.

3. Mental Characteristics of the Convention.
Beside the characteristics common to all

assemblies there are some created by influences of
environment and circumstances, which give any

particular assembly of men a special physiognomy.
Most of the characteristics observable in the

Constituent and Legislative Assemblies reappeared,

in an exaggerated form, in the Convention.

This Assembly comprised about seven

hundred and fifty deputies, of whom rather more

than a third had sat in the Constituent or the
Legislative Assembly. By terrorising the population

the Jacobins contrived to triumph at the elections.

The majority of the electors, six millions out of
seven, preferred to abstain from voting.

As to the professions, the Assembly

contained a large number of lawyers, advocates,

notaries, bailiffs, ex-magistrates, and a few literary
men.

The mentality of the Convention was not
homogeneous. Now, an assembly composed of

individuals of widely different characters soon splits
up into a number of groups. The Convention very

early contained three--the Gironde, the Mountain,
and the Plain. The constitutional monarchists had

almost disappeared.
The Gironde and the Mountain, extreme

parties, consisted of about a hundred members

apiece, who successively became leaders. In the

Mountain were the most advanced members:

Couthon, Herault de Sechelles, Danton, Camille

Desmoulins, Marat, Collot d'Herbois, Billaud-
Varennes, Barras, Saint-Just, Fouche, Tallien,

Carrier, Robespierre, &c. In the Gironde were

Brissot, Petion, Condorcet, Vergniaud, &c.
The five hundred other members of the

Assembly--that is, the great majority--constituted

what was known as the Plain.

This latter formed a floating mass, silent,
undecided, and timid; ready to follow every impulse

and to be carried away by the excitement of the
moment. It gave ear indifferently to the stronger of

the two preceding groups. After obeying the
Gironde for some time it allowed itself to be led

away by the Mountain, when the latter triumphed
over its enemy. This was a natural consequence of

the law already stated, by which the weak invariably
fall under the dominion of the stronger wills.

The influence of great manipulators of men

was displayed in a high degree during the

Convention. It was constantly led by a violent

minority of narrow minds, whose intense convictions

lent them great strength.
A brutal and audacious minority will always

lead a fearful and irresolute majority. This explains

the constant tendency toward extremes to be
observed in all revolutionary assemblies. The

history of the Convention verifies once more the law

of acceleration studied in another chapter.

The men of the Convention were thus bound
to pass from moderation to greater and greater

violence. Finally they decimated themselves. Of
the 180 Girondists who at the outset led the

Convention 140 were killed or fled, and finally the
most fanatical of the Terrorists, Robespierre,

reigned alone over a terrified crowd of servile
representatives.

Yet it was among the five hundred members
of the majority, uncertain and floating as it was,

that the intelligence and experience were to be

found. The technical committees to whom the

useful work of the Convention was due were

recruited from the Plain.

More or less indifferent to politics, the
members of the Plain were chiefly anxious that no

one should pay particular attention to them. Shut

up in their committees, they showed themselves as
little as possible in the Assembly, which explains

why the sessions of the Convention contained barely

a third of the deputies.

Unhappily, as often happens, these
intelligent and honest men were completely devoid

of character, and the fear which always dominated
them made them vote for the worst of the measures

introduced by their dreaded masters.
The men of the Plain voted for everything

they were ordered to vote for--the creation of the
Revolutionary Tribunal, the Terror, &c. It was with

their assistance that the Mountain crushed the
Gironde, and Robespierre destroyed the Hebertists

and Dantonists. Like all weak people, they followed

the strong. The gentle philanthropists who

composed the Plain, and constituted the majority of

the Assembly, contributed, by their pusillanimity, to

bring about the frightful excesses of the Convention.
The psychological note always prevailing in

the Convention was a horrible fear. It was more

especially through fear that men cut off one
another's heads, in the doubtful hope of keeping

their own on their shoulders.

Such a fear was, of course, very

comprehensible. The unhappy deputies deliberated
amid the hootings and vociferations of the tribunes.

At every moment veritable savages, armed with
pikes, invaded the Assembly, and the majority of

the members no longer dared to attend the
sessions. When by chance they did go it was only

to vote in silence according to the orders of the
Mountain, which was only a third as numerous.

The fear which dominated the latter,
although less visible, was just as profound. Men

destroyed their enemies, not only because they

were shallow fanatics, but because they were

convinced that their own existence was threatened.

The judges of the revolutionary Tribunals trembled

no less. They would have willingly acquitted
Danton, and the widow of Camille Desmoulins, and

many others. They dared not.

But it was above all when Robespierre
became the sole master that the phantom of fear

oppressed the Assembly. It has truly been said that

a glance from the master made his colleagues

shrink with fear. On their faces one read ``the
pallor of fear and the abandon of despair.''

All feared Robespierre and Robespierre
feared all. It was because he feared conspiracies

against him that he cut off men's heads, and it was
also through fear that others allowed him to do so.

The memoirs of members of the Convention
show plainly what a horrible memory they retained

of this gloomy period. Questioned twenty years
later, says Taine, on the true aim and the intimate

thoughts of the Committee of Public Safety, Barrere

replied:--

``We had only one feeling, that of self-

preservation; only one desire, that of preserving our

lives, which each of us believed to be threatened.
You had your neighbour's head cut off so that your

neighbour should not have you yourself guillotined.''

The history of the Convention constitutes
one of the most striking examples that could be

given of the influence of leaders and of fear upon an

assembly.


CHAPTER IV THE GOVERNMENT OF THE

CONVENTION
1. The activity of the Clubs and the Commune

during the Convention.
During the whole of its existence the

Convention was governed by the leaders of the
clubs and of the Commune.

We have already seen what was their
influence on the preceding Assemblies. It became

overwhelming during the Convention. The history of
this latter is in reality that of the clubs and the

Commune which dominated it. They enslaved, not
only the Convention, but also all France. Numerous

little provincial clubs, directed by that of the capital,

supervised magistrates, denounced suspects, and

undertook the execution of all the revolutionary

orders.

When the clubs or the Commune had

decided upon certain measures they had them voted
by the Assembly then and there. If the Assembly
resisted, they sent their armed delegations thither--

that is, armed bands recruited from the scum of the

populace. They conveyed injunctions which were
always slavishly obeyed. The Commune was so

sure of its strength that it even demanded of the
Convention the immediate expulsion of deputies

who displeased it.
While the Convention was composed

generally of educated men, the members of the
Commune and the clubs comprised a majority of

small shopkeepers, labourers, and artisans,
incapable of personal opinions, and always guided

by their leaders--Danton, Camille Desmoulins,

Robespierre, &c.

Of the two powers, clubs and insurrectionary

Commune, the latter exercised the greater influence

in Paris, because it had made for itself a
revolutionary army. It held under its orders forty-

eight committees of National Guards, who asked

nothing more than to kill, sack, and, above all,
plunder.
The tyranny with which the Commune

crushed Paris was frightful. For example, it

delegated to a certain cobbler, Chalandon by name,
the right of surveillance over a portion of the

capital--a right implying the power to send to the
Revolutionary Tribunal, and therefore to the

guillotine, all those whom he suspected. Certain
streets were thus almost depopulated by him.

The Convention struggled feebly against the
Commune at the outset, but did not prolong its

resistance. The culminating point of the conflict
occurred when the Convention wished to arrest

Hebert, the friend of the Commune, and the latter

sent armed bands who threatened the Assembly and

demanded the expulsion of the Girondists who had

provoked the measure. Upon the Convention

refusing the Commune besieged it on June 2, 1798,
by means of its revolutionary army, which was

under the orders of Hanriot. Terrified, the Assembly

gave up twenty-seven of its members. The
Commune immediately sent a delegation ironically

to felicitate it upon its obedience.

After the fall of the Girondists the

Convention submitted itself completely to the
injunctions of the omnipotent Commune. The latter

decreed the levy of a revolutionary army, to be
accompanied by a tribunal and a guillotine, which

was to traverse the whole of France in order to
execute suspects.

Only towards the end of its existence, after
the fall of Robespierre, did the Convention contrive

to escape from the yoke of the Jacobins and the
Commune. It closed the Jacobin club and

guillotined its leading members.

Despite such sanctions the leaders still

continued to excite the populace and hurl it against

the Convention. In Germinal and Prairial it

underwent regular sieges. Armed delegations even
succeeded in forcing the Convention to vote the re-

establishment of the Commune and the convocation

of a new Assembly, a measure which the
Convention hastened to annul the moment the

insurgents had withdrawn. Ashamed of its fear, it

sent for regiments which disarmed the faubourgs

and made nearly ten thousand arrests. Twenty-six
leaders of the movement were put to death, and six

deputies who were concerned in the riot were
guillotined.

But the Convention did not resist to any
purpose. When it was no longer led by the clubs

and the Commune it obeyed the Committee of
Public Safety and voted its decrees without

discussion.
``The Convention,'' writes H. Williams,

``which spoke of nothing less than having all the

princes and kings of Europe brought to its feet

loaded with chains, was made prisoner in its own

sanctuary by a handful of mercenaries.''

2. The Government of France during the
Convention--The Terror.

As soon as it assembled in 1792 the

Convention began by decreeing the abolition of
royalty, and in spite of the hesitation of a great

number of its members, who knew that the

provinces were royalist, it proclaimed the Republic.

Intimately persuaded that such a
proclamation would transform the civilised world, it

instituted a new era and a new calendar. The year
I. of this era marked the dawn of a world in which

reason alone was to reign. It was inaugurated by
the trial of Louis XVI., a measure which was ordered

by the Commune, but which the majority of the
Convention did not desire.

At its outset, in fact, the Convention was
governed by its relatively moderate elements, the

Girondists. The president and the secretaries had

been chosen among the best known of this party.

Robespierre, who was later to become the absolute

master of the Convention, possessed so little

influence at this time that he obtained only six votes
for the presidency, while Petion received two

hundred and thirty-five.

The Montagnards had at first only a very
slight influence. Their power was of later growth.

When they were in power there was no longer room

in the Convention for moderate members.

Despite their minority the Montagnards
found a way to force the Assembly to bring Louis to

trial. This was at once a victory over the Girondists,
the condemnation of all kings, and a final divorce

between the old order and the new.
To bring about the trial they manoeuvred

very skilfully, bombarding the Convention with
petitions from the provinces, and sending a

deputation from the insurrectional Commune of
Paris, which demanded a trial.

According to a characteristic common to the

Assemblies of the Revolution, that of yielding to

threats and always doing the contrary of what they

wished, the men of the Convention dared not resist.

The trial was decided upon.
The Girondists, who individually would not

have wished for the death of the king, voted for it

out of fear once they were assembled. Hoping to
save his own head, the Duc d'Orleans, Louis' cousin,

voted with them. If, on mounting the scaffold on

January 21, 1793, Louis had had that vision of the

future which we attribute to the gods, he would
have seen following him, one by one, the greater

number of the Girondists whose weakness had been
unable to defend him.

Regarded only from the purely utilitarian
point of view, the execution of the king was one of

the mistakes of the Revolution. It engendered civil
war and armed Europe against France. In the

Convention itself his death gave rise to intestine
struggles, which finally led to the triumph of the

Montagnards and the expulsion of the Girondists.

The measures passed under the influence of

the Montagnards finally became so despotic that

sixty departments, comprising the West and the

South, revolted. The insurrection, which was
headed by many of the expelled deputies, would

perhaps have succeeded had not the compromising

assistance of the royalists caused men to fear the
return of the ancien regime. At Toulon, in fact, the

insurgents acclaimed Louis XVII.

The civil war thus begun lasted during the

greater part of the life of the Revolution. It was
fought with the utmost savagery. Old men, women,

children, all were massacred, and villages and crops
were burned. In the Vendee alone the number of

the killed was reckoned at something between half a
million and a million.

Civil war was soon followed by foreign war.
The Jacobins thought to remedy all these ills by

creating a new Constitution. It was always a
tradition with all the revolutionary assemblies to

believe in the magic virtues of formula. In France

this conviction has never been affected by the

failure of experiments.

`À robust faith,'' writes one of the great

admirers of the Revolution, M. Rambaud,
``sustained the Convention in this labour; it

believed firmly that when it had formulated in a law

the principles of the Revolution its enemies would be
confounded, or, still better, converted, and that the

advent of justice would disarm the insurgents.''

During its lifetime the Convention drafted

two Constitutions-- that of 1793, or the year I., and
that of 1795, or the year III. The first was never

applied, an absolute dictatorship very soon replacing
it; the second created the Directory.

The Convention contained a large number of
lawyers and men of affairs, who promptly

comprehended the impossibility of government by
means of a large Assembly. They soon divided the

Convention into small committees, each of which
had an independent existence--business

committees, committees of legislation, finance,

agriculture, arts, &c. These committees prepared

the laws which the Assembly usually voted with its

eyes closed.
Thanks to them, the work of the Convention
was not purely destructive. They drafted many very

useful measures, creating important colleges,

establishing the metric system, &c. The majority of
the members of the Assembly, as we have already

seen, took refuge in these committees in order to

evade the political conflict which would have

endangered their heads.
Above the business committees, which had

nothing to do with politics, was the Committee of
Public Safety, instituted in April, 1793, and

composed of nine members. Directed at first by
Danton, and in the July of the same year by

Robespierre, it gradually absorbed all the powers of
government, including that of giving orders to

ministers and generals. Carnot directed the
operations of the war, Cambon the finances, and

Saint-Just and Collot-d'Herbois the general policy.

Although the laws voted by the technical

committees were often very wise, and constituted

the lasting work of the Convention, those which the

Assembly voted in a body under the threats of the
delegations which invaded it were manifestly

ridiculous.
Among these laws, which were not greatly in
the interests of the public or of the Convention

itself, were the law of the maximum, voted in

September, 1793, which pretended to fix the price

of provisions, and which merely established a
continual dearth; the destruction of the royal tombs

at Saint-Denis; the trial of the queen, the
systematic devastation of the Vendee by fire, the

establishment of the Revolutionary Tribunal, &c.
The Terror was the chief means of

government during the Convention. Commencing in
September, 1793, it reigned for six months--that is,

until the death of Robespierre. Vainly did certain
Jacobins-- Danton, Camille Desmoulins, Herault de

Sechelles, &c.--propose that clemency should be

given a trial. The only result of this proposition was

that its authors were sent to the scaffold. It was

merely the lassitude of the public that finally put an

end to this shameful period.
The successive struggles of the various

parties in the Convention and its tendency towards

extremes eliminated one by one the men of
importance who had once played their part therein.

Finally it fell under the exclusive domination of

Robespierre. While the Convention was

disorganising and ravaging France, the armies were
winning brilliant victories. They had seized the left

bank of the Rhine, Belgium, and Holland. The treaty
of Basle ratified these conquests.

We have already mentioned, and we shall
return to the matter again, that the work of the

armies must be considered absolutely apart from
that of the Convention. Contemporaries understood

this perfectly, but to-day it is often forgotten.
When the Convention was dissolved, in

1795, after lasting for three years, it was regarded

with universal distrust. The perpetual plaything of

popular caprice, it had not succeeded in pacifying

France, but had plunged her into anarchy. The

general opinion respecting the Convention is well
summed up in a letter written in July, 1799, by the

Swedish charge d'affaires, Baron Drinkmann: `Ì

venture to hope that no people will ever be
governed by the will of more cruel and imbecile

scoundrels than those that have ruled France since

the beginning of her new liberty.''

3. The End of the Convention. The Beginnings
of the Directory.

At the end of its existence, the Convention,
always trusting to the power of formulae, drafted a

new Constitution, that of the year III., intended to
replace that of 1793, which had never been put into

execution. The legislative power was to be shared
by a so-called Council of Ancients composed of 150

members, and a council of deputies numbering 500.
The executive power was confided to a Directory of

five members, who were appointed by the Ancients
upon nomination by the Five Hundred, and renewed

every year by the election of one of their number.

It was specified that two-thirds of the members of

the new Assembly should be chosen from among

the deputies of the Convention. This prudent

measure was not very efficacious, as only ten

departments remained faithful to the Jacobins.
To avoid the election of royalists, the
Convention had decided to banish all emigres in

perpetuity.

The announcement of this Constitution did
not produce the anticipated effect upon the public.

It had no effect upon the popular riots, which
continued. One of the most important was that

which threatened the Convention on the 5th of
October, 1795.

The leaders hurled a veritable army upon
the Assembly. Before such provocation, the

Convention finally decided to defend itself, and sent
for troops, entrusting the command to Barras.

Bonaparte, who was then beginning to

emerge from obscurity, was entrusted with the task

of repression. With such a leader action was swift

and energetic. Vigorously pounded with ball near

the church at St. Roch, the insurgents fled, leaving
some hundreds of dead on the spot.

This action, which displayed a firmness to

which the Convention was little habituated, was only
due to the celerity of the military operations, for

while these were being carried out the insurgents

had sent delegates to the Assembly, which, as

usual, showed itself quite ready to yield to them.
The repression of this riot constituted the

last important act of the Convention. On the 26th of
October, 1795, it declared its mission terminated,

and gave way to the Directory.
We have already laid stress upon some of

the psychological lessons furnished by the
government of the Convention. One of the most

striking of these is the impotence of violence to
dominate men's minds in permanence.

Never did any Government possess such

formidable means of action, yet in spite of the

permanent guillotine, despite the delegates sent

with the guillotine into the provinces, despite its

Draconian laws, the Convention had to struggle
perpetually against riots, insurrections, and

conspiracies. The cities, the departments, and the

faubourgs of Paris were continually rising in revolt,
although heads were falling by the thousand.

This Assembly, which thought itself

sovereign, fought against the invincible forces which

were fixed in men's minds, and which material
constraint was powerless to overcome. Of these

hidden motive forces it never understood the power,
and it struggled against them in vain. In the end

the invisible forces triumphed.


CHAPTER V INSTANCES OF REVOLUTIONARY

VIOLENCE
1. Psychological Causes of Revolutionary

Violence.
We have shown in the course of the

preceding chapters that the revolutionary theories
constituted a new faith.

Humanitarian and sentimental, they exalted
liberty and fraternity. But, as in many religions, we

can observe a complete contradiction between
doctrine and action. In practice no liberty was

tolerated, and fraternity was quickly replaced by
frenzied massacres.

This opposition between principles and

conduct results from the intolerance which

accompanies all beliefs. A religion may be steeped

in humanitarianism and forbearance, but its

sectaries will always want to impose it on others by

force, so that violence is the inevitable result.
The cruelties of the Revolution were thus the
inherent results of the propagation of the new

dogmas. The Inquisition, the religious wars of

France, St. Bartholomew's Day, the revocation of
the Edict of Nantes, the ``Dragonnades,'' the

persecution of the Jansenists, &c., belonged to the
same family as the Terror and derived from the

same psychological sources.
Louis XIV. was not a cruel king, yet under

the impulse of his faith he drove hundreds of
thousands of Protestants out of France, after first

shooting down a considerable number and sending
others to the galleys.

The methods of persuasion adopted by all

believers are by no means a consequence of their

fear of the dissentient opposition. Protestants and

Jansenists were anything but dangerous under Louis

XIV. Intolerance arises above all from the
indignation experienced by a mind which is

convinced that it possesses the most dazzling

verities against the men who deny those truths, and
who are surely not acting in good faith. How can

one support error when one has the necessary

strength to wipe it out?

Thus have reasoned the believers of all
ages. Thus reasoned Louis XIV. and the men of the

Terror. These latter also were convinced that they
were in possession of absolute truths, which they

believed to be obvious, and whose triumph was
certain to regenerate humanity. Could they be

more tolerant toward their adversaries than the
Church and the kings of France had been toward

heretics?
We are forced to believe that terror is a

method which all believers regard as a necessity,

since from the beginning of the ages religious codes

have always been based upon terror. To force men

to observe their prescriptions, believers have sought

to terrify them with threats of an eternal hell of
torments.

The apostles of the Jacobin belief behaved

as their fathers had done, and employed the same
methods. If similar events occurred again we

should see identical actions repeated. If a new

belief--Socialism, for example--were to triumph to-

morrow, it would be led to employ methods of
propaganda like those of the Inquisition and the

Terror.
But were we to regard the Jacobin Terror

solely as the result of a religious movement, we
should not completely apprehend it. Around a

triumphant religious belief, as we saw in the case of
the Reformation, gather a host of individual

interests which are dependent on that belief. The
Terror was directed by a few fanatical apostles, but

beside this small number of ardent proselytes,

whose narrow minds dreamed of regenerating the

world, were great numbers of men who lived only to

enrich themselves. They rallied readily around the

first victorious leader who promised to enable them
to enjoy the results of their pillage.

``The Terrorists of the Revolution,'' writes

Albert Sorel, ``resorted to the Terror because they
wished to remain in power, and were incapable of

doing so by other means. They employed it for their

own salvation, and after the event they stated that

their motive was the salvation of the State. Before
it became a system it was a means of government,

and the system was only invented to justify the
means.''

We may thus fully agree with the following
verdict on the Terror, written by Emile Ollivier in his

work on the Revolution: ``The Terror was above all
a Jacquerie, a regularised pillage, the vastest

enterprise of theft that any association of criminals
has ever organised.''

2. The Revolutionary Tribunals.

The Revolutionary Tribunals constituted the

principal means of action of the Terror. Besides that

of Paris, created at the instigation of Danton, and

which a year afterwards sent its founder to the

guillotine, France was covered with such tribunals.

`Òne hundred and seventy-eight

tribunals,'' says Taine, `òf which 40 were
perambulant, pronounced death sentences in all

parts of the country, which were carried out

instantly on the spot. Between the 16th of April,

1793, and the 9th of Thermidor in the year II. that
of Paris guillotined 2,625 persons, and the provincial

judges worked as hard as those of Paris. In the
little town of Orange alone 331 persons were

guillotined. In the city of Arras 299 men and 93
women were guillotined. . . . In the city of Lyons

alone the revolutionary commissioner admitted to
1,684 executions. . . . The total number of these

murders has been put at 17,000, among whom were
1,200 women, of whom a number were

octogenarians.''
Although the Revolutionary Tribunal of Paris

claimed only 2,625 victims, it must not be forgotten

that all the suspects had already been summarily

massacred during the ``days'' of September.
The Revolutionary Tribunal of Paris, a mere

instrument of the Committee of Public Safety,

limited itself in reality, as Fouquier-Tinville justly
remarked during his trial, to executing its orders. It

surrounded itself at first with a few legal forms

which did not long survive. Interrogatory, defence,

witnesses-- all were finally suppressed. Moral
proof--that is, mere suspicion--sufficed to procure

condemnation. The president usually contented
himself with putting a vague question to the

accused. To work more rapidly still, Fouquier-
Tinville proposed to have the guillotine installed on

the same premises as the Tribunal.
This Tribunal sent indiscriminately to the

scaffold all the accused persons arrested by reason
of party hatred, and very soon, in the hands of

Robespierre, it constituted an instrument of the

bloodiest tyranny. When Danton, one of its

founders, became its victim, he justly asked pardon

of God and men, before mounting the scaffold for

having assisted to create such a Tribunal.
Nothing found mercy before it: neither the

genius of Lavoisier, nor the gentleness of Lucile

Desmoulins, nor the merit of Malesherbes. ``So
much talent,'' said Benjamin Constant, ``massacred

by the most cowardly and brutish of men!''

To find any excuse for the Revolutionary

Tribunal, we must return to our conception of the
religious mentality of the Jacobins, who founded and

directed it. It was a piece of work comparable in its
spirit and its aim to the Inquisition. The men who

furnished its victims--Robespierre, Saint-Just, and
Couthon--believed themselves the benefactors of

the human race in suppressing all infidels, the
enemies of the faith that was to regenerate the

earth.
The executions during the Terror did not

affect the members of the aristocracy only, since

4,000 peasants and 3,000 working-men were

guillotined.

Given the emotion produced in Paris in our

days by a capital execution, one might suppose that
the execution of so many persons at one time would

produce a very great emotion. But habit had so

dulled sensibility that people paid but little attention
to the matter at last. Mothers would take their

children to see people guillotined as to-day they

take them to the marionette theatre.

The daily spectacle of executions made the
men of the time very indifferent to death. All

mounted the scaffold with perfect tranquillity, the
Girondists singing the Marseillaise as they climbed

the steps.
This resignation resulted from the law of

habitude, which very rapidly dulls emotion. To
judge by the fact that royalist risings were taking

place daily, the prospect of the guillotine no longer
terrified men. Things happened as though the

Terror terrorised no one. Terror is an efficacious

psychological process so long as it does not last.

The real terror resides far more in threats than in

their realisation.
3. The Terror in the Provinces.
The executions of the Revolutionary

Tribunals in the provinces represented only a

portion of the massacres effected in the
departments during the Terror. The revolutionary

army, composed of vagabonds and brigands,

marched through France killing and pillaging. Its

method of procedure is well indicated by the
following passage from Taine:--

`Àt Bedouin, a town of 2,000 inhabitants,
where unknown hands had cut down the tree of

liberty, 433 houses were demolished or fired, 16
persons were guillotined, and 47 shot down; all the

other inhabitants were expelled and reduced to
living as vagabonds in the mountains, and to taking

shelter in caverns which they hollowed out of the
earth.''

The fate of the wretches sent before the

Revolutionary Tribunals was no better. The first

mockery of trial was quickly suppressed. At Nantes,

Carrier drowned and shot down according to his

fancy nearly 5,000 persons--men, women, and
children.

The details of these massacres figured in the

Moniteur after the reaction of Thermidor. I cite a
few lines:--
`Ì saw,'' says Thomas, `àfter the taking

of Noirmoutier, men and women and old people

burned alive . . . women violated, girls of fourteen
and fifteen, and massacred afterward, and tender

babes thrown from bayonet to bayonet; children
who were taken from beside their mothers stretched

out on the ground.''
In the same number we read a deposition

by one Julien, relating how Carrier forced his victims
to dig their graves and to allow themselves to be

buried alive. The issue of October 15, 1794,
contained a report by Merlin de Thionville proving

that the captain of the vessel le Destin had received

orders to embark forty-one victims to be drowned--

`àmong them a blind man of 78, twelve women,

twelve girls, and fourteen children, of whom ten

were from 10 to 6 and five at the breast.''
In the course of Carrier's trial (Moniteur,

December 30, 1794) it was proved that he ``had

given orders to drown and shoot women and
children, and had ordered General Haxo to

exterminate all the inhabitants of La Vendee and to

burn down their dwellings.''

Carrier, like all wholesale murderers, took
an intense joy in seeing his victims suffer. `Ìn the

department in which I hunted the priests,'' he said,
`Ì have never laughed so much or experienced

such pleasure as in watching their dying grimaces''
(Moniteur, December 22, 1794).

Carrier was tried to satisfy the reaction of
Thermidor. But the massacres of Nantes were

repeated in many other towns. Fouche slew more
than 2,000 persons at Lyons, and so many were

killed at Toulon that the population fell from 29,000

to 7,000 in a few months.

We must say in defence of Carrier, Freron,

Fouche and all these sinister persons, that they

were incessantly stimulated by the Committee of
Public Safety. Carrier gave proof of this during his

trial.
`Ì admit,'' said he (Moniteur, December
24, 1794), ``that 150 or 200 prisoners were shot

every day, but it was by order of the commission. I

informed the Convention that the brigands were

being shot down by hundreds, and it applauded this
letter, and ordered its insertion in the Bulletin.

What were these deputies doing then who are so
furious against me now? They were applauding.

Why did they still keep me òn mission'? Because I
was then the saviour of the country, and now I am a

bloodthirsty man.''
Unhappily for him, Carrier did not know, as

he remarked in the same speech, that only seven or
eight persons led the Convention.

But the terrorised Assembly approved of all

that these seven or eight ordered, so that they

could say nothing in reply to Carrier's argument. He

certainly deserved to be guillotined, but the whole

Convention deserved to be guillotined with him,
since it had approved of the massacres.

The defence of Carrier, justified by the

letters of the Committee, by which the
representatives `òn mission'' were incessantly

stimulated, shows that the violence of the Terror

resulted from a system, and not, as has sometimes

been claimed, from the initiative of a few
individuals.

The thirst for destruction during the Terror
was by no means assuaged by the destruction of

human beings only; there was an even greater
destruction of inanimate things. The true believer is

always an iconoclast. Once in power, he destroys
with equal zeal the enemies of his faith and the

images, temples, and symbols which recall the faith
attacked.

We know that the first action of the Emperor

Theodosius when converted to the Christian religion

was to break down the majority of the temples

which for six thousand years had been built beside

the Nile. We must not, therefore, be surprised to
see the leaders of the Revolution attacking the

monuments and works of art which for them were

the vestiges of an abhorred past.
Statues, manuscripts, stained glass

windows, and plate were frenziedly broken. When

Fouche, the future Duke of Otranto under Napoleon,

and minister under Louis XVIII., was sent as
commissary of the Convention to the Nievre, he

ordered the demolition of all the towers of the
chateaux and the belfries of the churches ``because

they wounded equality.''
Revolutionary vandalism expended itself

even on the tomb. Following a report read by
Barrere to the Convention, the magnificent royal

tombs at Saint-Denis, among which was the
admirable mausoleum of Henri II., by Germain

Pilon, were smashed to pieces, the coffins emptied,

and the body of Turenne sent to the Museum as a

curiosity, after one of the keepers had extracted the

teeth in order to sell them as curiosities. The

moustache and beard of Henri IV. were also torn
out.

It is impossible to witness such

comparatively enlightened men consenting to the
destruction of the artistic patriotism of France

without a feeling of sadness. To excuse them, we

must remember that intense beliefs give rise to the

worst excesses, and also that the Convention,
almost daily invaded by rioters, always yielded to

the popular will.
This glowing record of devastation proves,

not only the power of fanaticism: it shows us what
becomes of men who are liberated from all social

restraints, and of the country which falls into their
hands.


CHAPTER VI THE ARMIES OF THE

REVOLUTION
1. The Revolutionary Assemblies and the

Armies.
If nothing were known of the revolutionary

Assemblies, and notably of the Convention, beyond
their internal dissensions, their weakness, and their

acts of violence, their memory would indeed be a
gloomy one.

But even for its enemies this bloodstained
epoch must always retain an undeniable glory,

thanks to the success of its armies. When the
Convention dissolved France was already the

greater by Belgium and the territories on the left

bank of the Rhine.

Regarding the Convention as a whole, it

seems equitable to credit it with the victories of the

armies of France, but if we analyse this whole in

order to study each of its elements separately their
independence will at once be obvious. It is at once
apparent that the Convention had a very small

share in the military events of the time. The armies

on the frontier and the revolutionary Assemblies in
Paris formed two separate worlds, which had very

little influence over one another, and which
regarded matters in a very different light.

We have seen that the Convention was a
weak Government, which changed its ideas daily,

according to popular impulse; it was really an
example of the profoundest anarchy. It directed

nothing, but was itself continually directed; how,
then, could it have commanded armies?

Completely absorbed in its intestine

quarrels, the Assembly had abandoned all military

questions to a special committee, which was

directed almost single-handed by Carnot, and whose

real function was to furnish the troops with
provisions and ammunition. The merit of Carnot

consisted in the fact that besides directing over

752,000 men at the disposal of France, upon points
which were strategically valuable, he also advised

the generals of the armies to take the offensive, and

to preserve a strict discipline.

The sole share of the Assembly in the
defence of the country was the decree of the

general levy. In the face of the numerous enemies
then threatening France, no Government could have

avoided such a measure. For some little time, too,
the Assembly had sent representatives to the armies

instructed to decapitate certain generals, but this
policy was soon abandoned.

As a matter of fact the military activities of
the Assembly were always extremely slight. The

armies, thanks to their numbers, their enthusiasm,

and the tactics devised by their youthful generals,

achieved their victories unaided. They fought and

conquered independently of the Convention.

2. The Struggle of Europe against the
Revolution.

Before enumerating the various

psychological factors which contributed to the
successes of the revolutionary armies, it will be
useful briefly to recall the origin and the

development of the war against Europe.

At the commencement of the Revolution the
foreign sovereigns regarded with satisfaction the

difficulties of the French monarchy, which they had
long regarded as a rival power. The King of Prussia,

believing France to be greatly enfeebled, thought to
enrich himself at her expense, so he proposed to the

Emperor of Austria to help Louis on condition of
receiving Flanders and Alsace as an indemnity. The

two sovereigns signed an alliance against France in
February, 1792. The French anticipated attack by

declaring war upon Austria, under the influence of

the Girondists. The French army was at the outset

subjected to several checks. The allies penetrated

into Champagne, and came within 130 miles of

Paris. Dumouriez' victory at Valmy forced them to
retire.

Although 300 French and 200 Prussians only

were killed in this battle, it had very significant
results. The fact that an army reputed invincible

had been forced to retreat gave boldness to the

young revolutionary troops, and everywhere they

took the offensive. In a few weeks the soldiers of
Valmy had chased the Austrians out of Belgium,

where they were welcomed as liberators.
But it was under the Convention that the

war assumed such importance. At the beginning of
1793 the Assembly declared that Belgium was

united to France. From this resulted a conflict with
England which lasted for twenty-two years.

Assembled at Antwerp in April, 1793, the
representatives of England, Prussia, and Austria

resolved to dismember France. The Prussians were

to seize Alsace and Lorraine; the Austrians, Flanders

and Artois; the English, Dunkirk. The Austrian

ambassador proposed to crush the Revolution by

terror, ``by exterminating practically the whole of
the party directing the nation.'' In the face of such

declarations France had perforce to conquer or to

perish.
During this first coalition, between 1793 and

1797, France had to fight on all her frontiers, from

the Pyrenees to the north.

At the outset she lost her former conquests,
and suffered several reverses. The Spaniards took

Perpignan and Bayonne; the English, Toulon; and
the Austrians, Valenciennes. It was then that the

Convention, towards the end of 1793, ordered a
general levy of all Frenchmen between the ages of

eighteen and forty, and succeeded in sending to the
frontiers a total of some 750,000 men. The old

regiments of the royal army were combined with
battalions of volunteers and conscripts.

The allies were repulsed, and Maubeuge was

relieved after the victory of Wattigny, which was

gained by Jourdan. Hoche rescued Lorraine. France

took the offensive, reconquering Belgium and the

left bank of the Rhine. Jourdan defeated the
Austrians at Fleurus, drove them back upon the

Rhine, and occupied Cologne and Coblentz. Holland

was invaded. The allied sovereigns resigned
themselves to suing for peace, and recognised the

French conquests.

The successes of the French were favoured

by the fact that the enemy never put their whole
heart into the affair, as they were preoccupied by

the partition of Poland, which they effected in 1793-
5. Each Power wished to be on the spot in order to

obtain more territory. This motive had already
caused the King of Prussia to retire after the battle

of Valmy in 1792.
The hesitations of the allies and their mutual

distrust were extremely advantageous to the
French. Had the Austrians marched upon Paris in

the summer of 1793, ``we should,'' said General

Thiebault, ``have lost a hundred times for one.

They alone saved us, by giving us time to make

soldiers, officers, and generals.''

After the treaty of Basle, France had no
important adversaries on the Continent, save the

Austrians. It was then that the Directory attacked

Austria in Italy. Bonaparte was entrusted with the
charge of this campaign. After a year of fighting,

from April, 1796, to April, 1797, he forced the last

enemies of France to demand peace.

3. Psychological and Military Factors which
determined the Success of the Revolutionary Armies.

To realise the causes of the success of the
revolutionary armies we must remember the

prodigious enthusiasm, endurance, and abnegation
of these ragged and often barefoot troops.

Thoroughly steeped in revolutionary principles, they
felt that they were the apostles of a new religion,

which was destined to regenerate the world.
The history of the armies of the Revolution

recalls that of the nomads of Arabia, who, excited to
fanaticism by the ideals of Mohammed, were

transformed into formidable armies which rapidly

conquered a portion of the old Roman world. An

analogous faith endowed the Republican soldiers

with a heroism and intrepidity which never failed

them, and which no reverse could shake When the

Convention gave place to the Directory they had
liberated the country, and had carried a war of
invasion into the enemy's territory. At this period

the soldiers were the only true Republicans left in

France.
Faith is contagious, and the Revolution was

regarded as a new era, so that several of the
nations invaded, oppressed by the absolutism of

their monarchs, welcomed the invaders as
liberators. The inhabitants of Savoy ran out to meet

the troops.
At Mayence the crowd welcomed them with

enthusiasm planted trees of liberty, and formed a
Convention in imitation of that of Paris.

So long as the armies of the Revolution had

to deal with peoples bent under the yoke of absolute

monarchy, and having no personal ideal to defend,

their success was relatively easy. But when they

entered into conflict with peoples who had an ideal
as strong as their own victory became far more

difficult.
The new ideal of liberty and equality was
capable of seducing peoples who had no precise

convictions, and were suffering from the despotism

of their masters, but it was naturally powerless

against those who possessed a potent ideal of their
own which had been long established in their minds.

For this reason Bretons and Vendeeans, whose
religious and monarchical sentiments were

extremely powerful, successfully struggled for years
against the armies of the Republic.

In March, 1793, the insurrections of the
Vendee and Brittany had spread to ten departments.

The Vendeeans in Poitou and the Chouans in
Brittany put 80,000 men in the field.

The conflicts between contrary ideals--that

is, between beliefs in which reason can play no part-

-are always pitiless, and the struggle with the

Vendee immediately assumed the ferocious

savagery always observable in religious wars. It
lasted until the end of 1795, when Hoche finally

``pacified'' the country. This pacification was the

simple result of the practical extermination of its
defenders.
`Àfter two years of civil war,'' writes

Molinari, ``the Vendee was no more than a hideous

heap of ruins. About 900,000 individuals--men,
women, children, and aged people--had perished,

and the small number of those who had escaped
massacre could scarcely find food or shelter. The

fields were devastated, the hedges and walls
destroyed, and the houses burned.''

Besides their faith, which so often rendered
them invincible, the soldiers of the Revolution had

usually the advantage of being led by remarkable
generals, full of ardour and formed on the battle-

field.
The majority of the former leaders of the

army, being nobles, had emigrated so that a new

body of officers had to be organised. The result was

that those gifted with innate military aptitudes had a
chance of showing them, and passed through all the

grades of rank in a few months. Hoche, for

instance, a corporal in 1789, was a general of
division and commander of an army at the age of

twenty-five. The extreme youth of these leaders

resulted in a spirit of aggression to which the armies

opposed to them were not accustomed. Selected
only according to merit, and hampered by no

traditions, no routine, they quickly succeeded in
working out a tactics suited to the new necessities.

Of soldiers without experience opposed to
seasoned professional troops, drilled and trained

according to the methods in use everywhere since
the Seven Years' War, one could not expect

complicated manoeuvres.
Attacks were delivered simply by great

masses of troops. Thanks to the numbers of the

men at the disposal of their generals, the

considerable gaps provoked by this efficacious but

barbarous procedure could be rapidly filled.

Deep masses of men attacked the enemy
with the bayonet, and quickly routed men

accustomed to methods which were more careful of

the lives of soldiers. The slow rate of fire in those
days rendered the French tactics relatively easy of

employment. It triumphed, but at the cost of

enormous losses. It has been calculated that

between 1792 and 1800 the French army left more
than a third of its effective force on the battle-field

(700,000 men out of 2,000,000).
Examining events from a psychological point

of view, we shall continue to elicit the consequences
from the facts on which they are consequent.

A study of the revolutionary crowds in Paris
and in the armies presents very different but readily

interpreted pictures.
We have proved that crowds, unable to

reason, obey simply their impulses, which are

always changing, but we have also seen that they

are readily capable of heroism, that their altruism is

often highly developed, and that it is easy to find

thousands of men ready to give their lives for a
belief.

Psychological characteristics so diverse must

naturally, according to the circumstances, lead to
dissimilar and even absolutely contradictory actions.

The history of the Convention and its armies proves

as much. It shows us crowds composed of similar

elements acting so differently in Paris and on the
frontiers that one can hardly believe the same

people can be in question.
In Paris the crowds were disorderly, violent,

murderous, and so changeable in their demands as
to make all government impossible.

In the armies the picture was entirely
different. The same multitudes of unaccustomed

men, restrained by the orderly elements of a
laborious peasant population, standardised by

military discipline, and inspired by contagious

enthusiasm, heroically supported privations,

disdained perils, and contributed to form that

fabulous strain which triumphed over the most

redoubtable troops in Europe.
These facts are among those which should

always be invoked to show the force of discipline. It

transforms men. Liberated from its influence,
peoples and armies become barbarian hordes.

This truth is daily and increasingly forgotten.

Ignoring the fundamental laws of collective logic, we

give way more and more to shifting popular
impulses, instead of learning to direct them.

The multitude must be shown the road to
follow; it is not for them to choose it.


CHAPTER VII PSYCHOLOGY OF THE LEADERS

OF THE REVOLUTION
1. Mentality of the Men of the Revolution. The

respective Influence of Violent and Feeble
Characters.

Men judge with their intelligence, and are
guided by their characters. To understand a man

fully one must separate these two elements.
During the great periods of activity--and the

revolutionary movements naturally belong to such
periods--character always takes the first rank.

Having in several chapters described the
various mentalities which predominate in times of

disturbance, we need not return to the subject now.

They constitute general types which are naturally

modified by each man's inherited and acquired

personality.

We have seen what an important part was

played by the mystic element in the Jacobin
mentality, and the ferocious fanaticism to which it
led the sectaries of the new faith.

We have also seen that all the members of

the Assemblies were not fanatics. These latter were
even in the minority, since in the most sanguinary

of the revolutionary assemblies the great majority
was composed of timid and moderate men of

neutral character. Before Thermidor the members
of this group voted from fear with the violent and

after Thermidor with the moderate deputies.
In time of revolution, as at other times,

these neutral characters, obeying the most contrary
impulses, are always the most numerous. They are

also as dangerous in reality as the violent

characters. The force of the latter is supported by

the weakness of the former.

In all revolutions, and in particularly in the

French Revolution, we observe a small minority of
narrow but decided minds which imperiously

dominate an immense majority of men who are

often very intelligent but are lacking in character
Besides the fanatical apostles and the feeble

characters, a revolution always produces individuals

who merely think how to profit thereby. These were

numerous during the French Revolution. Their aim
was simply to utilise circumstances so as to enrich

themselves. Such were Barras, Tallien, Fouche,
Barrere, and many more. Their politics consisted

simply in serving the strong against the weak.
From the outset of the Revolution these

`àrrivists,'' as one would call them to-day, were
numerous. Camille Desmoulins wrote in 1792:

`Òur Revolution has its roots only in the egotism
and self-love of each individual, of the combination

of which the general interest is composed.''

If we add to these indications the

observations contained in another chapter

concerning the various forms of mentality to be

observed in times of political upheaval, we shall
obtain a general idea of the character of the men of

the Revolution. We shall now apply the principles

already expounded to the most remarkable
personages of the revolutionary period.

2. Psychology of the Commissaries or

Representatives `òn Mission.''
In Paris the conduct of the members of the

Convention was always directed, restrained, or
excited by the action of their colleagues, and that of

their environment.
To judge them properly we should observe

them when left to themselves and uncontrolled,
when they possessed full liberty. Such were the

representatives who were sent `òn mission'' into
the departments by the Convention.

The power of these delegates was absolute.
No censure embarrassed them. Functionaries and

magistrates had perforce to obey them.

A representative `òn mission''

``requisitions,'' sequestrates, or confiscates as

seems good to him; taxes, imprisons, deports, or

decapitates as he thinks fit, and in his own district

he is a ''pasha.''
Regarding themselves as ``pashas,'' they
displayed themselves ``drawn in carriages with six

horses, surrounded by guards; sitting at sumptuous

tables with thirty covers, eating to the sound of
music, with a following of players, courtezans, and

mercenaries. . . .'' At Lyons ``the solemn
appearance of Collot d'Herbois is like that of the

Grand Turk. No one can come into his presence
without three repeated requests; a string of

apartments precedes his reception-room, and no
one approaches nearer than fifteen paces.''

One can picture the immense vanity of these
dictators as they solemnly entered the towns,

surrounded by guards, men whose gesture was

enough to cause heads to fall.

Petty lawyers without clients, doctors

without patients, unfrocked clergymen, obscure

attorneys, who had formerly known the most
colourless of lives, were suddenly made the equals

of the most powerful tyrants of history. Guillotining,

drowning, shooting without mercy, at the hazard of
their fancy, they were raised from their former

humble condition to the level of the most celebrated

potentates.

Never did Nero or Heliogabalus surpass in
tyranny the representatives of the Convention.

Laws and customs always restrained the former to a
certain extent. Nothing restrained the

commissaries.
``Fouche,'' writes Taine, ``lorgnette in

hand, watched the butchery of 210 inhabitants of
Lyons from his window. Collot, Laporte, and Fouche

feasted on days of execution (fusillades), and at the
sound of each discharge sprang up with cries of joy,

waving their hats.''

Among the representatives `òn mission''

who exhibit this murderous mentality we may cite

as a type the ex-cure Lebon, who, having become

possessed of supreme power, ravaged Arras and
Cambrai. His example, with that of Carrier,

contributes to show what man can become when he

escapes from the yoke of law and tradition. The
cruelty of the ferocious commissary was complicated

by Sadism; the scaffold was raised under his

windows, so that he, his wife, and his helpers could

rejoice in the carnage. At the foot of the guillotine a
drinking-booth was established where the sans-

culottes could come to drink. To amuse them the
executioner would group on the pavement, in

ridiculous attitudes, the naked bodies of the
decapitated.

``The reading of the two volumes of his
trial, printed at Amiens in 1795, may be counted as

a nightmare. During twenty sessions the survivors
of the hecatombs of Arras and Cambrai passed

through the ancient hall of the bailiwick at Amiens,

where the ex-member of the Convention was tried.

What these phantoms in mourning related is

unheard of. Entire streets dispeopled;

nonagenarians and girls of sixteen decapitated after
a mockery of a trial; death buffeted, insulted,

adorned, rejoiced in; executions to music; battalions

of children recruited to guard the scaffold; the
debauchery, the cynicism, the refinements of an

insane satrap; a romance by Sade turned epic; it

seems, as we watch the unpacking of these horrors,

that a whole country, long terrorised, is at last
disgorging its terror and revenging itself for its

cowardice by overwhelming the wretch there, the
scapegoat of an abhorred and vanished system.''

The only defence of the ex-clergyman was that he
had obeyed orders. The facts with which he was

reproached had long been known, and the
Convention had in no wise blamed him for them.

I have already spoken of the vanity of the
deputies `òn mission,'' who were suddenly

endowed with a power greater than that of the most

powerful despots; but this vanity is not enough to

explain their ferocity.

That arose from other sources. Apostles of

a severe faith, the delegates of the Convention, like
the inquisitors of the Holy Office, could feel, can

have felt, no pity for their victims. Freed,

moreover, from all the bonds of tradition and law,
they could give rein to the most savage instincts

that primitive animality has left in us.

Civilisation restrains these instincts, but

they never die. The need to kill which makes the
hunter is a permanent proof of this.

M. Cunisset-Carnot has expressed in the
following lines the grip of this hereditary tendency,

which, in the pursuit of the most harmless game,
re-awakens the barbarian in every hunter:--

``The pleasure of killing for killing's sake is,
one may say, universal; it is the basis of the hunting

instinct, for it must be admitted that at present, in
civilised countries, the need to live no longer counts

for anything in its propagation. In reality we are

continuing an action which was imperiously imposed

upon our savage ancestors by the harsh necessities

of existence, during which they had either to kill or

die of hunger, while to- day there is no longer any
legitimate excuse for it. But so it is, and we can do

nothing; probably we shall never break the chains of

a slavery which has bound us for so long. We
cannot prevent ourselves from feeling an intense,

often passionate, pleasure in shedding the blood of

animals towards whom, when the love of the chase

possesses us, we lose all feeling of pity. The
gentlest and prettiest creatures, the song-birds, the

charm of our springtime, fall to our guns or are
choked in our snares, and not a shudder of pity

troubles our pleasure at seeing them terrified,
bleeding, writhing in the horrible suffering we inflict

on them, seeking to flee on their poor broken paws
or desperately beating their wings, which can no

longer support them. . . . The excuse is the impulse
of that imperious atavism which the best of us have

not the strength to resist.''

At ordinary times this singular atavism,

restrained by fear of the laws, can only be exercised

on animals. When codes are no longer operative it

immediately applies itself to man, which is why so
many terrorists took an intense pleasure in killing.

Carrier's remark concerning the joy he felt in

contemplating the faces of his victims during their
torment is very typical. In many civilised men

ferocity is a restrained instinct, but it is by no means

eliminated.

3. Danton and Robespierre.
Danton and Robespierre represented the

two principal personages of the Revolution. I shall
say little of the former: his psychology, besides

being simple, is familiar. A club orator firstly,
impulsive and violent, he showed himself always

ready to excite the people. Cruel only in his
speeches, he often regretted their effects. From the

outset he shone in the first rank, while his future
rival, Robespierre, was vegetating almost in the

lowest.
At one given moment Danton became the

soul of the Revolution, but he was deficient in

tenacity and fixity of conduct. Moreover, he was

needy, while Robespierre was not. The continuous

fanaticism of the latter defeated the intermittent

efforts of the former. Nevertheless, it was an

amazing spectacle to see so powerful a tribune sent
to the scaffold by his pale, venemous enemy and

mediocre rival.

Robespierre, the most influential man of the

Revolution and the most frequently studied, is yet
the least explicable. It is difficult to understand the

prodigious influence which gave him the power of
life and death, not only over the enemies of the

Revolution but also over colleagues who could not
have been considered as enemies of the existing

Government.
We certainly cannot explain the matter by

saying with Taine that Robespierre was a pedant
lost in abstractions, nor by asserting with the

Michelet that he succeeded on account of his

principles, nor by repeating with his contemporary

Williams that `òne of the secrets of his

government was to take men marked by

opprobrium or soiled with crime as stepping-stones
to his ambition.''

It is impossible to regard his eloquence as

the cause of his success. His eyes protected by
goggles, he painfully read his speeches, which were

composed of cold and indefinite abstractions. The

Assembly contained orators who possessed an

immensely superior talent, such as Danton and the
Girondists; yet it was Robespierre who destroyed

them.
We have really no acceptable explanation of

the ascendancy which the dictator finally obtained.
Without influence in the National Assembly, he

gradually became the master of the Convention and
of the Jacobins. ``When he reached the Committee

of Public Safety he was already,'' said Billaud-
Varennes, ``the most important person in France.''

``His history,'' writes Michelet, `ìs

prodigious, far more marvellous than that of

Bonaparte. The threads, the wheels, the

preparation of forces, are far less visible. It is an

honest man, an austere but pious figure, of middling
talents, that shoots up one morning, borne upward

by I know not what cataclysm. There is nothing like

it in the Arabian Nights. And in a moment he goes
higher than the throne. He is set upon the altar.

Astonishing story!''

Certainly circumstances helped him

considerably. People turned to him as to the master
of whom all felt the need. But then he was already

there, and what we wish to discover is the cause of
his rapid ascent. I would willingly suppose in him

the existence of a species of personal fascination
which escapes us to-day. His successes with

women might be quoted in support of this theory.
On the days when he speaks ``the passages are

choked with women . . . there are seven or eight
hundred in the tribunes, and with what transports

they applaud! At the Jacobins, when he speaks

there are sobs and cries of emotion, and men stamp

as though they would bring the hall down.'' A young

widow, Mme. de Chalabre, possessed of sixteen

hundred pounds a year, sends him burning love-
letters and is eager to marry him.

We cannot seek in his character for the

causes of his popularity. A hypochondriac by
temperament, of mediocre intelligence, incapable of

grasping realities, confined to abstractions, crafty

and dissimulating, his prevailing note was an

excessive pride which increased until his last day.
High priest of a new faith, he believed himself sent

on earth by God to establish the reign of virtue. He
received writings stating ``that he was the Messiah

whom the Eternal Being had promised to reform
the world.''

Full of literary pretensions, he laboriously
polished his speeches. His profound jealousy of

other orators or men of letters, such as Camille
Desmoulins, caused their death.

``Those who were particularly the objects

of the tyrant's rage,'' writes the author already

cited, ``were the men of letters. With regard to

them the jealousy of a colleague was mingled with

the fury of the oppressor; for the hatred with which
he persecuted them was caused less by their

resistance to his despotism than by their talents,

which eclipsed his.''
The contempt of the dictator for his

colleagues was immense and almost unconcealed.

Giving audience to Barras at the hour of his toilet,

he finished shaving, spitting in the direction of his
colleague as though he did not exist, and disdaining

to reply to his questions.
He regarded the bourgeoisie and the

deputies with the same hateful disdain. Only the
multitude found grace in his eyes. ``When the

sovereign people exercises its power,'' he said,
``we can only bow before it. In all it does all is

virtue and truth, and no excess, error, or crime is
possible.''

Robespierre suffered from the persecution

mania. That he had others' heads cut off was not

only because he had a mission as an apostle, but

because he believed himself hemmed in by enemies

and conspirators. ``Great as was the cowardice of
his colleagues where he was concerned,'' writes M.

Sorel, ``the fear he had of them was still greater.''

His dictatorship, absolute during five
months, is a striking example of the power of

certain leaders. We can understand that a tyrant

backed by an army can easily destroy whom he

pleases, but that a single man should succeed in
sending to death a large number of his equals is a

thing that is not easily explained.
The power of Robespierre was so absolute

that he was able to send to the Tribunal, and
therefore to the scaffold, the most eminent

deputies: Desmoulins, Hebert, Danton, and many
another. The brilliant Girondists melted away before

him. He attacked even the terrible Commune,
guillotined its leaders, and replaced it by a new

Commune obedient to his orders.

In order to rid himself more quickly of the

men who displeased him he induced the Convention

to enact the law of Prairial, which permitted the

execution of mere suspects, and by means of which
he had 1,373 heads cut off in Paris in forty-nine

days. His colleagues, the victims of an insane

terror, no longer slept at home; scarcely a hundred
deputies were present at sessions. David said: `Ì

do not believe twenty of us members of the

Mountain will be left.''

It was his very excess of confidence in his
own powers and in the cowardice of the Convention

that lost Robespierre his life. Having attempted to
make them vote a measure which would permit

deputies to be sent before the Revolutionary
Tribunal, which meant the scaffold, without the

authorisation of the Assembly, on an order from the
governing Committee, several Montagnards

conspired with some members of the Plain to
overthrow him. Tallien, knowing himself marked

down for early execution, and having therefore

nothing to lose, accused him loudly of tyranny.

Robespierre wished to defend himself by reading a

speech which he had long had in hand, but he

learned to his cost that although it is possible to
destroy men in the name of logic it is not possible to

lead an assembly by means of logic. The shouts of

the conspirators drowned his voice; the cry ``Down
with the tyrant!'' quickly repeated, thanks to mental

contagion, by many of the members present, was

enough to complete his downfall. Without losing a

moment the Assembly decreed his accusation.
The Commune having wished to save him,

the Assembly outlawed him. Struck by this magic
formula, he was definitely lost.

``This cry of outlawry,'' writes Williams,
`àt this period produced the same effect on a

Frenchman as the cry of pestilence; the outlaw
became civilly excommunicated, and it was as

though men believed that they would be
contaminated passing through the air which he had

breathed. Such was the effect it produced upon the

gunners who had trained their cannon against the

Convention. Without receiving further orders,

merely on hearing that the Commune was òutside

the law,' they immediately turned their batteries
about.''

Robespierre and all his band--Saint-Just, the

president of the Revolutionary Tribunal, the mayor
of the Commune, &c.,--were guillotined on the 10th

of Thermidor to the number of twenty-one.

Their execution was followed on the morrow

by a fresh batch of seventy Jacobins, and on the
next day by thirteen. The Terror, which had lasted

ten months, was at an end.
The downfall of the Jacobin edifice in

Thermidor is one of the most curious psychological
events of the revolutionary period. None of the

Montagnards who had worked for the downfall of
Robespierre had for a moment dreamed that it

would mark the end of the Terror.
Tallien, Barras, Fouche, &c., overthrew

Robespierre as he had overthrown Hebert, Danton,

the Girondists, and many others. But when the

acclamations of the crowd told them that the death

of Robespierre was regarded as having put an end

to the Terror they acted as though such had been
their intention. They were the more obliged to do

so in that the Plain--that is, the great majority of

the Assembly--which had allowed itself to be
decimated by Robespierre, now rebelled furiously

against the system it had so long acclaimed even

while it abhorred it. Nothing is more terrible than a

body of men who have been afraid and are afraid no
longer. The Plain revenged itself for being

terrorised by the Mountain, and terrorised that body
in turn.

The servility of the colleagues of Robespierre
in the Convention was by no means based upon any

feeling of sympathy for him. The dictator filled
them with an unspeakable alarm, but beneath the

marks of admiration and enthusiasm which they
lavished on him out of fear was concealed an

intense hatred. We can gather as much by reading

the reports of various deputies inserted in the

Moniteur of August 11, 15, and 29, 1794, and

notably that on ``the conspiracy of the triumvirs,

Robespierre, Couthon, and Saint-Just.'' Never did
slaves heap such invectives on a fallen master.

We learn that ``these monsters had for

some time been renewing the most horrible
prescriptions of Marius and Sulla.'' Robespierre is

represented as a most frightful scoundrel; we are

assured that ``like Caligula, he would soon have

asked the French people to worship his horse . . .
He sought security in the execution of all who

aroused his slightest suspicion.''
These reports forget to add that the power

of Robespierre obtained no support, as did that of
the Marius and Sulla to whom they allude, from a

powerful army, but merely from the repeated
adhesion of the members of the Convention.

Without their extreme timidity the power of the
dictator could not have lasted a single day.

Robespierre was one of the most odious

tyrants of history, but he is distinguished from all

others in that he made himself a tyrant without

soldiers.
We may sum up his doctrines by saying that
he was the most perfect incarnation, save perhaps

Saint-Just, of the Jacobin faith, in all its narrow

logic, its intense mysticism, and its inflexible
rigidity. He has admirers even to-day. M. Hamel

describes him as ``the martyr of Thermidor.''

There has been some talk of erecting a monument

to him. I would willingly subscribe to such a
purpose, feeling that it is useful to preserve proofs

of the blindness of the crowd, and of the
extraordinary docility of which an assembly is

capable when the leader knows how to handle it.
His statue would recall the passionate cries of

admiration and enthusiasm with which the
Convention acclaimed the most threatening

measures of the dictator, on the very eve of the day
when it was about to cast him down.

4. Fouquier-Tinville, Marat, Billaud-

Varenne, &c.

I shall devote a paragraph to certain

revolutionists who were famous for the development

of their most sanguinary instincts. Their ferocity

was complicated by other sentiments, by fear and

hatred, which could but fortify it.

Fouquier-Tinville, the public prosecutor of
the Revolutionary Tribunal, was one of those who

have left the most sinister memories. This

magistrate, formerly reputed for his kindness, and

who became the bloodthirsty creature whose
memory evokes such repulsion, has already served

me as an example in other works, when I have
wished to show the transformation of certain

natures in time of revolution.
Needy in the extreme at the moment of the

fall of the monarchy, he had everything to hope
from a social upheaval and nothing to lose. He was

one of those men whom a period of disorder will
always find ready to sustain it.

The Convention abandoned its powers to

him. He had to pronounce upon the fate of nearly

two thousand accused, among whom were Marie-

Antoinette, the Girondists, Danton, Hebert, &c. He

had all the suspects brought before him executed,
and did not scruple to betray his former protectors.

As soon as one of them fell into his power--Camille

Desmoulins, Danton, or another--he would plead
against him.
Fouquier-Tinville had a very inferior mind,

which the Revolution brought to the top. Under

normal conditions, hedged about by professional
rules, his destiny would have been that of a

peaceable and obscure magistrate. This was
precisely the lot of his deputy, or substitute, at the

Tribunal, Gilbert-Liendon. ``He should,'' writes M.
Durel, ``have inspired the same horror as his

colleague, yet he completed his career in the upper
ranks of the Imperial magistracy.''

One of the great benefits of an organised
society is that it does restrain these dangerous

characters, whom nothing but social restraints can

hold.

Fouquier-Tinville died without understanding

why he was condemned, and from the revolutionary

point of view his condemnation was not justifiable.
Had he not merely zealously executed the orders of

his superiors? It is impossible to class him with the

representatives who were sent into the provinces,
who could not be supervised. The delegates of the

Convention examined all his sentences and

approved of them up to the last. If his cruelty and

his summary fashion of trying the prisoners before
him had not been encouraged by his chiefs, he could

not have remained in power. In condemning
Fouquier-Tinville, the Convention condemned its

own frightful system of government. It understood
this fact, and sent to the scaffold a number of

Terrorists whom Fouquier-Tinville had merely served
as a faithful agent.

Beside Fouquier-Tinville we may set Dumas,
who presided over the Revolutionary Tribunal, and

who also displayed an excessive cruelty, which was

whetted by an intense fear. He never went out

without two loaded pistols, barricaded himself in his

house, and only spoke to visitors through a wicket.

His distrust of everybody, including his own wife,
was absolute. He even imprisoned the latter, and

was about to have her executed when Thermidor

arrived.
Among the men whom the Convention

brought to light, Billaud- Varenne was one of the

wildest and, most brutal. He may be regarded as a

perfect type of bestial ferocity.
`Ìn these hours of fruitful anger and heroic

anguish he remained calm, acquitting himself
methodically of his task--and it was a frightful task:

he appeared officially at the massacres of the
Abbaye, congratulated the assassins, and promised

them money; upon which he went home as if he had
merely been taking a walk. We see him as

president of the Jacobin Club, president of the
Convention, and member of the Committee of Public

Safety; he drags the Girondists to the scaffold: he

drags the queen thither, and his former patron,

Danton, said of him, `Billaud has a dagger under his

tongue.' He approves of the cannonades at Lyons,

the drownings at Nantes, the massacres at Arras;
he organises the pitiless commission of Orange; he

is concerned in the laws of Prairial; he eggs on

Fouquier-Tinville; on all decrees of death is his
name, often the first; he signs before his

colleagues; he is without pity, without emotion,

without enthusiasm; when others are frightened,

hesitate, and draw back, he goes his way, speaking
in turgid sentences, `shaking his lion's mane'--for to

make his cold and impassive face more in harmony
with the exuberance that surrounds him he now

decks himself in a yellow wig which would make one
laugh were it on any but the sinister head of Billaud-

Varenne. When Robespierre, Saint-Just, and
Couthon are threatened in turn, he deserts them

and goes over to the enemy, and pushes them
under the knife. . . . Why? What is his aim? No

one knows; he is not in any way ambitious; he

desires neither power nor money.''

I do not think it would be difficult to answer

why. The thirst for blood, of which we have already

spoken, and which is very common among certain
criminals, perfectly explains the conduct of Billaud-

Varennes. Bandits of this type kill for the sake of

killing, as sportsmen shoot game--for the very
pleasure of exercising their taste for destruction. In

ordinary times men endowed with these homicidal

tendencies refrain, generally from fear of the

policeman and the scaffold. When they are able to
give them free vent nothing can stop them. Such

was the case with Billaud-Varenne and many others.
The psychology of Marat is rather more

complicated, not only because his craving for
murder was combined with other elements--

wounded self-love, ambition, mystic beliefs, &c.--
but also because we must regard him as a semi-

lunatic, affected by megalomania, and haunted by
fixed ideas.

Before the Revolution he had advanced

great scientific pretensions, but no one attached

much importance to his maunderings. Dreaming of

place and honour, he had only obtained a very

subordinate situation in the household of a great
noble. The Revolution opened up an unhoped-for

future. Swollen with hatred of the old social system

which had not recognised his merits, he put himself
at the head of the most violent section of the

people. Having publicly glorified the massacres of

September, he founded a journal which denounced

everybody and clamoured incessantly for
executions.

Speaking continually of the interests of the
people, Marat became their idol. The majority of his

colleagues heartily despised him. Had he escaped
the knife of Charlotte Corday, he certainly would not

have escaped that of the guillotine.
5. The Destiny of those Members of the

Convention who survived the Revolution.
Beside the members of the Convention

whose psychology presents particular characteristics
there were others--Barras, Fouche, Tallien, Merlin

de Thionville, &c.--completely devoid of principles or

belief, who only sought to enrich themselves.

They sought to build up enormous fortunes

out of the public misery. In ordinary times they

would have been qualified as simple scoundrels, but

in periods of revolution all standards of vice and
virtue seem to disappear.
Although a few Jacobins remained fanatics,

the majority renounced their convictions as soon as

they had obtained riches, and became the faithful
courtiers of Napoleon. Cambaceres, who, on

addressing Louis XVI. in prison, called him Louis
Capet, under the Empire required his friends to call

him ``Highness'' in public and ``Monseigneur'' in
private, thus displaying the envious feeling which

accompanied the craving for equality in many of the
Jacobins.

``The majority of the Jacobins,'' writes M.
Madelin ``were greatly enriched, and like Chabot,

Bazire, Merlin, Barras, Boursault, Tallien, Barrere,

&c., possessed chateaux and estates. Those who

were not wealthy as yet were soon to become so. . .

In the Committee of the year III. alone the staff of

the Thermidorian party comprised a future prince,
13 future counts, 5 future barons, 7 future senators

of the Empire, and 6 future Councillors of State, and

beside them in the Convention there were, between
the future Duke of Otranto to the future Count

Regnault, no less than 50 democrats who fifteen

years later possessed titles, coats of arms, plumes,

carriages, endowments, entailed estates, hotels,
and chateaux. Fouche died worth L600,000.''

The privileges of the ancien regime which
had been so bitterly decried were thus very soon re-

established for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. To
arrive at this result it was necessary to ruin France,

to burn entire provinces, to multiply suffering, to
plunge innumerable families into despair, to

overturn Europe, and to destroy men by the
hundred thousand on the field of battle.

In closing this chapter we will recall what we

have already said concerning the possibility of

judging the men of this period.

Although the moralist is forced to deal

severely with certain individuals, because he judges
them by the types which society must respect if it is

to succeed in maintaining itself, the psychologist is

not in the same case. His aim is to understand, and
criticism vanishes before a complete

comprehension.

The human mind is a very fragile

mechanism, and the marionettes which dance upon
the stage of history are rarely able to resist the

imperious forces which impel them. Heredity,
environment, and circumstances are imperious

masters. No one can say with certainty what would
have been his conduct in the place of the men

whose actions he endeavours to interpret.


BOOK III THE CONFLICT BETWEEN

ANCESTRAL INFLUENCES AND
REVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES


CHAPTER I THE LAST CONVULSIONS OF

ANARCHY--THE DIRECTORY
1. The Psychology of the Directory.

As the various revolutionary assemblies
were composed in part of the same men, one might

suppose that their psychology would be very similar.
At ordinary periods this would have been so,

for a constant environment means constancy of
character. But when circumstances change as

rapidly as they did under the Revolution, character
must perforce transform itself to adapt itself

thereto. Such was the case with the Directory.

The Directory comprised several distinct

assemblies: two large chambers, consisting of

different categories of deputies, and one very small

chamber, which consisted of the five Directors.

The two larger Assemblies remind one

strongly of the Convention by their weakness. They

were no longer forced to obey popular riots, as
these were energetically prevented by the Directors,

but they yielded without discussion to the dictatorial

injunctions of the latter.

The first deputies to be elected were mostly
moderates. Everyone was weary of the Jacobin

tyranny. The new Assembly dreamed of rebuilding
the ruins with which France was covered, and

establishing a liberal government without violence.
But by one of those fatalities which were a

law of the Revolution, and which prove that the
course of events is often superior to men's wills,

these deputies, like their predecessors, may be said
always to have done the contrary of what they

wished to do. They hoped to be moderate, and they

were violent; they wanted to eliminate the influence

of the Jacobins, and they allowed themselves to be

led by them; they thought to repair the ruins of the

country and they succeeded only in adding others to
them; they aspired to religious peace, and they

finally persecuted and massacred the priests with

greater rigour than during the Terror.
The psychology of the little assembly formed

by the five Directors was very different from that of

the Chamber of Deputies. Encountering fresh

difficulties daily, the directors were forced to resolve
them, while the large Assemblies, without contact

with realities, had only their aspirations.
The prevailing thought of the Directors was

very simple. Highly indifferent to principles, they
wished above all to remain the masters of France.

To attain that result they did not shrink from
resorting to the most illegitimate measures, even

annulling the elections of a great number of the
departments when these embarrassed them.

Feeling themselves incapable of reorganising

France, they left her to herself. By their despotism

they contrived to dominate her, but they never

governed her. Now, what France needed more than

anything at this juncture was to be governed.
The convention has left behind it the

reputation of a strong Government, and the

Directory that of a weak Government. The contrary
is true: it was the Directory that was the strong

Government.

Psychologically we may readily explain the

difference between the Government of the Directory
and that of the preceding Assemblies by recalling

the fact that a gathering of six hundred to seven
hundred persons may well suffer from waves of

contagious enthusiasm, as on the night of the 4th of
August, or even impulses of energetic will-power,

such as that which launched defiance against the
kings of Europe. But such impulses are too

ephemeral to possess any great force. A committee
of five members, easily dominated by the will of

one, is far more susceptible of continuous

resolution--that is, of perseverance in a settled line

of conduct.

The Government of the Directory proved to

be always incapable of governing, but it never
lacked a strong will. Nothing restraining it, neither

respect for law nor consideration for the citizens,

nor love of the public welfare, it was able to impose
upon France a despotism more crushing than that of

any Government since the beginning of the

Revolution, not excepting the Terror.

Although it utilised methods analogous to
those of the Convention, and ruled France in the

most tyrannical manner, the Directory, no more
than the Convention, was never the master of

France.
This fact, which I have already noted,

proves once more the impotence of material
constraint to dominate moral forces. It cannot be

too often repeated that the true guide of mankind is
the moral scaffolding erected by his ancestors.

Accustomed to live in an organised society,

supported by codes and respected traditions, we can

with difficulty represent to ourselves the condition of

a nation deprived of such a basis. As a general

thing we only see the irksome side of our
environment, too readily forgetting that society can

exist only on condition of imposing certain

restraints, and that laws, manners, and custom
constitute a check upon the natural instincts of

barbarism which never entirely perishes.

The history of the Convention and the

Directory which followed it shows plainly to what
degree disorder may overcome a nation deprived of

its ancient structure, and having for guide only the
artificial combinations of an insufficient reason.

2. Despotic Government of the Directory.
Recrudescence of the Terror.

With the object of diverting attention,
occupying the army, and obtaining resources by the

pillage of neighbouring countries, the Directors
decided to resume the wars of conquest which had

succeeded under the Convention.
These continued during the life time of the

Directory. The armies won a rich booty, especially

in Italy.

Some of the invaded populations were so

simple as to suppose that these invasions were

undertaken in their interest. They were not long in

discovering that all military operations were
accompanied by crushing taxes and the pillage of
churches, public treasuries, &c.

The final consequence of this policy of

conquest was the formation of a new coalition
against France, which lasted until 1801.

Indifferent to the state of the country and
incapable of reorganising it, the Directors were

principally concerned in struggling against an
incessant series of conspiracies in order to keep in

power.
This task was enough to occupy their

leisure, for the political parties had not disarmed.
Anarchy had reached such a point that all were

calling for a hand powerful enough to restore order.

Everyone felt, the Directors included, that the

republican system could not last much longer.

Some dreamed of re-establishing royalty,

others the Terrorist system, while others waited for
a general. Only the purchasers of the national

property feared a change of Government.

The unpopularity of the Directory increased
daily, and when in May, 1797, the third part of the

Assembly had to be renewed, the majority of those

elected were hostile to the system.

The Directors were not embarrassed by a
little thing like that. They annulled the elections in

49 departments; 154 of the new deputies were
invalidated and expelled, 53 condemned to

deportation. Among these latter figured the most
illustrious names of the Revolution: Portalis,

Carnot, Tronson du Coudray, &c.
To intimidate the electors, military

commissions condemned to death, rather at
random, 160 persons, and sent to Guiana 330, of

whom half speedily died. The emigres and priests

who had returned to France were violently expelled.

This was known as the coup d'etat of Fructidor.

This coup, which struck more especially at

the moderates, was not the only one of its kind;
another quickly followed. The Directors, finding the

Jacobin deputies too numerous, annulled the

elections of sixty of them.
The preceding facts displayed the tyrannical

temper of the Directors, but this appeared even

more plainly in the details of their measures. The

new masters of France also proved to be as
bloodthirsty as the most ferocious deputies of the

Terror.
The guillotine was not re-established as a

permanency, but replaced by deportation under
conditions which left the victims little chance of

survival. Sent to Rochefort in cages of iron bars,
exposed to all the severities of the weather, they

were then packed into boats.
``Between the decks of the Decade and the

Bayonnaise,'' says Taine, ``the miserable prisoners,

suffocated by the lack of air and the torrid heat,

bullied and fleeced, died of hunger or asphyxia, and

Guiana completed the work of the voyage: of 193

taken thither by the Decade 39 were left alive at the
end of twenty-two months; of 120 taken by the

Bayonnaise 1 remained.
Observing everywhere a Catholic
renascence, and imagining that the clergy were

conspiring against them, the Directors deported or

sent to the galleys in one year 1,448 priests, to say

nothing of a large number who were summarily
executed. The Terror was in reality completely re-

established.
The autocratic despotism of the Directory

was exercised in all the branches of the
administration, notably the finances. Thus, having

need of six hundred million francs, it forced the
deputies, always docile, to vote a progressive

impost, which yielded, however, only twelve
millions. Being presently in the same condition, it

decreed a forced loan of a hundred millions, which

resulted in the closing of workshops, the stoppage

of business, and the dismissal of domestics. It was

only at the price of absolute ruin that forty millions

could be obtained.
To assure itself of domination in the

provinces the Directory caused a so-called law of

hostages to be passed, according to which a list of
hostages, responsible for all offences, was drawn up

in each commune.

It is easy to understand what hatred such a

system provoked. At the end of 1799 fourteen
departments were in revolt and forty-six were ready

to rise. If the Directory had lasted the dissolution of
society would have been complete.

For that matter, this dissolution was far
advanced. Finances, administration, everything was

crumbling. The receipts of the Treasury, consisting
of depreciated assignats fallen to a hundredth part

of their original value, were negligible. Holders of
Government stock and officers could no longer

obtain payment.
France at this time gave travellers the

impression of a country ravaged by war and

abandoned by its inhabitants. The broken bridges

and dykes and ruined buildings made all traffic
impossible. The roads, long deserted, were infested

by brigands.
Certain departments could only be crossed
at the price of buying a safe-conduct from the

leaders of these bands. Industry and commerce

were annihilated. In Lyons 13,000 workshops and

mills out of 15,000 had been forced to close. Lille,
Havre, Bordeaux, Lyons, Marseilles, &c., were like

dead cities. Poverty and famine were general.
The moral disorganisation was no less

terrible. Luxury and the craving for pleasure, costly
dinners, jewels, and extravagant households were

the appanage of a new society composed entirely of
stock-jobbers, army contractors, and shady

financiers enriched by pillage. They gave Paris that
superficial aspect of luxury and gaiety which has

deluded so many historians of this period, because

the insolent prodigality displayed covered the

general misery.

The chronicles of the Directory as told in

books help to show us of what lies the web of
history is woven. The theatre has lately got hold of

this period, of which the fashions are still imitated.

It has left the memory of a joyous period of re-birth
after the gloomy drama of the Terror. In reality the

drama of the Directory was hardly an improvement

on the Terror and was quite as sanguinary. Finally,

it inspired such loathing that the Directors, feeling
that it could not last, sought themselves for the

dictator capable of replacing it and also of protecting
them.

3. The Advent of Bonaparte.
We have seen that at the end of the

Directory the anarchy and disorganisation were such
that every one was desperately calling for the man

of energy capable of re-establishing order. As early
as 1795 a number of deputies had thought for a

moment of re- establishing royalty. Louis XVIII.,

having been tactless enough to declare that he

would restore the ancien regime in its entirety,

return all property to its original owners, and punish

the men of the Revolution, was immediately thrown

over. The senseless expedition of Quiberon finally

alienated the supporters of the future sovereign.

The royalists gave a proof during the whole of the
Revolution of an incapacity and a narrowness of

mind which justified most of the measures taken

against them.

The monarchy being impossible, it was
necessary to find a general. Only one existed whose

name carried weight--Bonaparte. The campaign in
Italy had just made him famous. Having crossed

the Alps, he had marched from victory to victory,
penetrated to Milan and Venice, and everywhere

obtained important war contributions. He then
made towards Vienna, and was only twenty- five

leagues from its gates when the Emperor of Austria
decided to sue for peace.

But great as was his renown, the young

general did not consider it sufficient. To increase it

he persuaded the Directory that the power of

England could be shaken by an invasion of Egypt,

and in May, 1798, he embarked at Toulon.
This need of increasing his prestige arose

from a very sound psychological conception which

he clearly expounded at St. Helena:--
``The most influential and enlightened

generals had long been pressing the general of Italy

to take steps to place himself at the head of the

Republic. He refused; he was not yet strong enough
to walk quite alone. He had ideas upon the art of

governing and upon what was necessary to a great
nation which were so different from those of the

men of the Revolution and the assemblies that, not
being able to act alone, he feared to compromise his

character. He determined to set out for Egypt, but
resolved to reappear if circumstances should arise to

render his presence useful or necessary.''
Bonaparte did not stay long in Egypt.

Recalled by his friends, he landed at Frejus, and the

announcement of his return provoked universal

enthusiasm. There were illuminations everywhere.

France collaborated in advance in the coup d'etat

prepared by two Directors and the principal
ministers. The plot was organised in three weeks.

Its execution on the 18th of Brumaire was

accomplished with the greatest ease.
All parties experienced the greatest delight

at being rid of the sinister gangs who had so long

oppressed and exploited the country. The French

were doubtless about to enter upon a despotic
system of government, but it could not be so

intolerable as that which had been endured for so
many years.

The history of the coup d'etat of Brumaire
justifies all that we have already said of the

impossibility of forming exact judgments of events
which apparently are fully understood and attested

by no matter how many witnesses.
We know what ideas people had thirty years

ago concerning the coup of Brumaire. It was

regarded as a crime committed by the ambition of a

man who was supported by his army. As a matter

of fact the army played no part whatever in the

affair. The little body of men who expelled the few
recalcitrant deputies were not soldiers even, but the

gendarmes of the Assembly itself. The true author

of the coup d'etat was the Government itself, with
the complicity of all France.

4. Causes of the Duration of the Revolution.

If we limit the Revolution to the time
necessary for the conquest of its fundamental

principles--equality before the law, free access to
public functions, popular sovereignty, control of

expenditures, &c.--we may say that it lasted only a
few months. Towards the middle of 1789 all this

was accomplished, and during the years that
followed nothing was added to it, yet the Revolution

lasted much longer.
Confining the duration to the dates admitted

by the official historians, we see it persisting until

the advent of Bonaparte, a space of some ten years.

Why did this period of disorganisation and

violence follow the establishment of the new

principles? We need not seek the cause in the

foreign war, which might on several occasions have

been terminated, thanks to the divisions of the allies

and the constant victories of the French; neither
must we look for it in the sympathy of Frenchmen

for the revolutionary Government. Never was rule

more cordially hated and despised than that of the

Assemblies. By its revolts as well as by its repeated
votes a great part of the nation displayed the horror

with which it regarded the system.
This last point, the aversion of France for

the revolutionary regime, so long misunderstood,
has been well displayed by recent historians. The

author of the last book published on the Revolution,
M. Madelin, has well summarised their opinion in the

following words:--
`Às early as 1793 a party by no means

numerous had seized upon France, the Revolution,

and the Republic. Now, three-quarters of France

longed for the Revolution to be checked, or rather

delivered from its odious exploiters; but these held

the unhappy country by a thousand means. . . . As
the Terror was essential to them if they were to

rule, they struck at whomsoever seemed at any

given moment to be opposed to the Terror, were
they the best servants of the Revolution.''

Up to the end of the Directory the

government was exercised by Jacobins, who merely

desired to retain, along with the supreme power, the
riches they had accumulated by murder and pillage,

and were ready to surrender France to any one who
would guarantee them free possession of these.

That they negotiated the coup d'etat of Brumaire
with Napoleon was simply to the fact that they had

not been able to realise their wishes with regard to
Louis XVIII.

But how explain the fact that a Government
so tyrannical and so dishonoured was able to

survive for so many years?

It was not merely because the revolutionary

religion still survived in men's minds, nor because it

was forced on them by means of persecution and

bloodshed, but especially, as I have already stated,
on account of the great interest which a large

portion of the population had in maintaining it.

This point is fundamental. If the Revolution
had remained a theoretical religion, it would

probably have been of short duration. But the belief

which had just been founded very quickly emerged

from the domain of pure theory.
The Revolution did not confine itself to

despoiling the monarchy, the nobility, and the clergy
of their powers of government. In throwing into the

hands of the bourgeoisie and the large numbers of
peasantry the wealth and the employments of the

old privileged classes it had at the same stroke
turned them into obstinate supporters of the

revolutionary system. All those who had acquired
the property of which the nobles and clergy had

been despoiled had obtained lands and chateaux at

low prices, and were terrified lest the restoration of

the monarchy should force them to make general

restitution.
It was largely for these reasons that a
Government which, at any normal period, would

never have been endured, was able to survive until

a master should re-establish order, while promising
to maintain not only the moral but also the material

conquests of the Revolution. Bonaparte realised

these anxieties, and was promptly and

enthusiastically welcomed. Material conquests
which were still contestable and theoretical

principles which were still fragile were by him
incorporated in institutions and the laws. It is an

error to say that the Revolution terminated with his
advent. Far from destroying it, he ratified and

consolidated it.


CHAPTER II THE RESTORATION OF ORDER.

THE CONSULAR REPUBLIC
1. How the Work of the Revolution was

Confirmed by the Consulate.
The history of the Consulate is as rich as the

preceding period in psychological material. In the
first place it shows us that the work of a powerful

individual is superior to that of a collectivity.
Bonaparte immediately replaced the bloody anarchy

in which the Republic had for ten years been
writhing by a period of order. That which none of

the four Assemblies of the Revolution had been able
to realise, despite the most violent oppression, a

single man accomplished in a very short space of

time.

His authority immediately put an end to all

the Parisian insurrections and the attempts at

monarchical resistance, and re- established the

moral unity of France, so profoundly divided by
intense hatreds. Bonaparte replaced an
unorganised collective despotism by a perfectly

organised individual despotism. Everyone gained

thereby, for his tyranny was infinitely less heavy
than that which had been endured for ten long

years. We must suppose, moreover, that it was
unwelcome to very few, as it was very soon

accepted with immense enthusiasm.
We know better to-day than to repeat with

the old historians that Bonaparte overthrew the
Republic. On the contrary, he retained of it all that

could be retained, and never would have been
retained without him, by establishing all the

practicable work of the Revolution--the abolition of

privileges, equality before the law, &c.--in

institutions and codes of law. The Consular

Government continued, moreover, to call itself the

Republic.
It is infinitely probable that without the

Consulate a monarchical restoration would have

terminated the Directory, and would have wiped out
the greater part of the work of the Revolution. Let

us suppose Bonaparte erased from history. No one,

I think, will imagine that the Directory could have

survived the universal weariness of its rule. It
would certainly have been overturned by the royalist

conspiracies which were breaking out daily, and
Louis XVIII. would probably have ascended the

throne. Certainly he was to mount it sixteen years
later, but during this interval Bonaparte gave such

force to the principles of the Revolution, by
establishing them in laws and customs, that the

restored sovereign dared not touch them, nor
restore the property of the returned emigres.

Matters would have been very different had

Louis XVIII. immediately followed the Directory. He

would have brought with him all the absolutism of

the ancien regime, and fresh revolutions would have

been necessary to abolish it. We know that a mere
attempt to return to the past overthrew Charles X.

It would be a little ingenuous to complain of

the tyranny of Bonaparte. Under the ancien regime
Frenchmen had supported every species of tyranny,

and the Republic had created a despotism even

heavier than that of the monarchy. Despotism was

then a normal condition, which aroused no protest
save when it was accompanied by disorder.

A constant law of the psychology of crowds
shows them as creating anarchy, and then seeking

the master who will enable them to emerge
therefrom. Bonaparte was this master.

2. The Reorganisation of France by the
Consulate.

Upon assuming power Bonaparte undertook
a colossal task. All was in ruins; all was to be

rebuilt. On the morrow of the coup of Brumaire he
drafted, almost single-handed, the Constitution

destined to give him the absolute power which was

to enable him to reorganise the country and to

prevail over the factions. In a month it was

completed.

This Constitution, known as that of the year

VIII., survived, with slight modifications, until the
end of his reign. The executive power was the
attribute of three Consuls, two of whom possessed a

consultative voice only. The first Consul, Bonaparte,

was therefore sole master of France. He appointed
ministers, councillors of state, ambassadors,

magistrates, and other officials, and decided upon
peace or war. The legislative power was his also,

since only he could initiate the laws, which were
subsequently submitted to three Assemblies--the

Council of State, the Tribunate, and the Legislative
Corps. A fourth Assembly, the Senate, acted

effectually as the guardian of the Constitution.
Despotic as he was and became, Bonaparte

always called the other Consuls about him before

proceeding with the most trivial measure. The

Legislative Corps did not exercise much influence

during his reign, but he signed no decrees of any

kind without first discussing them with the Council
of State. This Council, composed of the most

enlightened and learned men of France, prepared

laws, which were then presented to the Legislative
Corps, which could criticise them very freely, since

voting was secret. Presided over by Bonaparte, the

Council of State was a kind of sovereign tribunal,

judging even the actions of ministers.[9]

[9] Napoleon naturally often overruled the
Council of State, but by no means always did so. In

one instance, reported in the Memorial de Sainte-
Helene, he was the only one of his own opinion, and

accepted that of the majority in the following terms:
``Gentlemen, matters are decided here by majority,

and being alone, I must give way; but I declare that
in my conscience I yield only to form. You have

reduced me to silence, but in no way convinced

me.''

Another day the Emperor, interrupted three

times in the expression of his opinion, addressed

himself to the speaker who had just interrupted
him: ``Sir, I have not yet finished; I beg you to

allow me to continue. After all, it seems to me that

every one has a perfect right to express his opinion
here.''
``The Emperor, contrary to the accepted

opinion, was so far from absolute, and so easy with

his Council of State, that he often resumed a
discussion, or even annulled a decision, because one

of the members of the Council had since, in private,
given him fresh reasons, or had urged that the

Emperor's personal opinion had influenced the
majority.''

The new master had great confidence in

this Council, as it was composed more particularly of
eminent jurists, each of whom dealt with his own

speciality. He was too good a psychologist not to

entertain the greatest suspicion of large and

incompetent assemblies of popular origin, whose

disastrous results had been obvious to him during

the whole of the Revolution.
Wishing to govern for the people, but never

with its assistance, Bonaparte accorded it no part in

the government, reserving to it only the right of
voting, once for all, for or against the adoption of

the new Constitution. He only in rare instances had

recourse to universal suffrage. The members of the

Legislative Corps recruited themselves, and were
not elected by the people.

In creating a Constitution intended solely to
fortify his own power, the First Consul had no

illusion that it would serve to restore the country.
Consequently, while he was drafting it he also

undertook the enormous task of the administrative,
judicial, and financial reorganisation of France. The

various powers were centralised in Paris. Each
department was directed by a prefect, assisted by a

consul-general; the arrondissement by a sub-

prefect, assisted by a council; the commune by a

mayor, assisted by a municipal council. All were

appointed by the ministers, and not by election, as

under the Republic.
This system, which created the omnipotent

State and a powerful centralisation, was retained by

all subsequent Governments and is preserved to-
day. Centralisation being, in spite of its drawbacks,

the only means of avoiding local tyrannies in a

country profoundly divided within itself, has always

been maintained.
This organisation, based on a profound

knowledge of the soul of the French people,
immediately restored that tranquillity and order

which had for so long been unknown.
To complete the mental pacification of the

country, the political exiles were recalled and the
churches restored to the faithful.

Continuing to rebuild the social edifice,
Bonaparte busied himself also with the drafting of a

code, the greater part of which consisted of customs

borrowed from the ancien regime. It was, as has

been said, a sort of transition or compromise

between the old law and the new.

Considering the enormous task
accomplished by the First Consul in so short a time,

we realise that he had need, before all, of a

Constitution according him absolute power. If all
the measures by which he restored France had been

submitted to assemblies of attorneys, he could

never have extricated the country from the disorder

into which it had fallen.
The Constitution of the year VIII. obviously

transformed the Republic into a monarchy at least
as absolute as the ``Divine right'' monarchy of

Louis XIV. Being the only Constitution adapted to
the needs of the moment, it represented a

psychological necessity.
3. Psychological Elements which determined

the Success of the Work of the Consulate.
All the external forces which act upon men-

-economic, historical, geographical, &c.--may be
finally translated into psychological forces. These

psychological forces a ruler must understand in

order to govern. The Revolutionary Assemblies

were completely ignorant of them; Bonaparte knew

how to employ them.

The various Assemblies, the Convention

notably, were composed of conflicting parties.
Napoleon understood that to dominate them he
must not belong to any one of these parties. Very

well aware that the value of a country is

disseminated among the superior intelligences of
the various parties, he tried to utilise them all. His

agents of government--ministers, priests,
magistrates, &c.--were taken indifferently from

among the Liberals, Royalists, Jacobites, &c., having
regard only to their capacities.

While accepting the assistance of men of the
ancien regime, Bonaparte took care to make it

understood that he intended to maintain the
fundamental principles of the Revolution.

Nevertheless many Royalists rallied round the new

Government.

One of the most remarkable feats of the

Consulate, from the psychological point of view, was

the restoration of religious peace. France was far
more divided by religious disagreement than by

political differences. The systematic destruction of a

portion of the Vendee had almost completely
terminated the struggle by force of arms, but

without pacifying men's minds. As only one man,

and he the head of Christianity, could assist in this

pacification, Bonaparte did not hesitate to treat with
him. His concordat was the work of a real

psychologist, who knew that moral forces do not use
violence, and the great danger of persecuting such.

While conciliating the clergy he contrived to place
them under his own domination. The bishops were

to be appointed and remunerated by the State, so
that he would still be master.

The religious policy of Napoleon had a
bearing which escapes our modern Jacobins.

Blinded by their narrow fanaticism, they do not

understand that to detach the Church from the

Government is to create a state within the State, so

that they are liable to find themselves opposed by a

formidable caste, directed by a master outside
France, and necessarily hostile to France. To give

one's enemies a liberty they did not possess is

extremely dangerous. Never would Napoleon, nor
any of the sovereigns who preceded him, have

consented to make the clergy independent of the

State, as they have become to-day.

The difficulties of Bonaparte the First Consul
were far greater than those he had to surmount

after his coronation. Only a profound knowledge of
men enabled him to triumph over them. The future

master was far from being the master as yet. Many
departments were still in insurrection. Brigandage

persisted, and the Midi was ravaged by the
struggles of partisans. Bonaparte, as Consul, had to

conciliate and handle Talleyrand, Fouche, and a
number of generals who thought themselves his

equal. Even his brothers conspired against his

power. Napoleon, as Emperor, had no hostile party

to face, but as Consul he had to combat all the

parties and to hold the balance equal among them.

This must indeed have been a difficult task, since
during the last century very few Governments have

succeeded in accomplishing it.

The success of such an undertaking
demanded an extremely subtle mixture of finesse,

firmness, and diplomacy. Not feeling himself

powerful enough as yet, Bonaparte the Consul made

a rule, according to his own expression, `òf
governing men as the greater number wish to be

governed.'' As Emperor he often managed to
govern them according to his own ideal.

We have travelled a long way since the time
when historians, in their singular blindness, and

great poets, who possessed more talent than
psychology, would hold forth in indignant accents

against the coup d'etat of Brumaire. What profound
illusions underlay the assertion that ``France lay

fair in Messidor's great sun''! And other illusions no

less profound underlay such verdicts as that of

Victor Hugo concerning this period. We have seen

that the ``Crime of Brumaire'' had as an

enthusiastic accomplice, not only the Government
itself but the whole of France, which it delivered

from anarchy.
One may wonder how intelligent men could
so misjudge a period of history which is

nevertheless so clear. It was doubtless because

they saw events through their own convictions, and

we know what transformations the truth may suffer
for the man who is imprisoned in the valleys of

belief. The most luminous facts are obscured, and
the history of events is the history of his dreams.

The psychologist who desires to understand
the period which we have so briefly sketched can

only do so if, being attached to no party, he stands
clear of the passions which are the soul of parties.

He will never dream of recriminating a past which
was dictated by such imperious necessities.

Certainly Napoleon has cost France dear: his epic

was terminated by two invasions, and there was yet

to be a third, whose consequences are felt even to-

day, when the prestige which he exerted even from

the tomb set upon the throne the inheritor of his
name.

All these events are narrowly connected in

their origin. They represent the price of that capital
phenomenon in the evolution of a people, a change

of ideal. Man can never make the attempt to break

suddenly with his ancestors without profoundly

affecting the course of his own history.


CHAPTER III POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN TRADITIONS AND
REVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES DURING THE

LAST CENTURY
1. The Psychological Causes of the continued

Revolutionary Movements to which France has been
subject.

In examining, in a subsequent chapter, the
evolution of revolutionary ideas during the last

century, we shall see that during more than fifty
years they very slowly spread through the various

strata of society.
During the whole of this period the great

majority of the people and the bourgeoisie rejected

them, and their diffusion was effected only by a very

limited number of apostles. But their influence,

thanks principally to the faults of Governments, was

sufficient to provoke several revolutions. We shall

examine these briefly when we have examined the
psychological influences which gave them birth.
The history of our political upheavals during

the last century is enough to prove, even if we did

not yet realise the fact, that men are governed by
their mentalities far more than by the institutions

which their rulers endeavour to force upon them.
The successive revolutions which France has

suffered have been the consequences of struggles
between two portions of the nation whose

mentalities are different. One is religious and
monarchical and is dominated by long ancestral

influences; the other is subjected to the same
influences, but gives them a revolutionary form.

From the commencement of the Revolution

the struggle between contrary mentalities was

plainly manifested. We have seen that in spite of

the most frightful repression insurrections and

conspiracies lasted until the end of the Directory.
They proved that the traditions of the past had left

profound roots in the popular soul. At a certain

moment sixty departments were in revolt against
the new Government, and were only repressed by

repeated massacres on a vast scale.

To establish some sort of compromise

between the ancien regime and the new ideals was
the most difficult of the problems which Bonaparte

had to resolve. He had to discover institutions
which would suit the two mentalities into which

France was divided. He succeeded, as we have
seen, by conciliatory measures, and also by dressing

very ancient things in new names.
His reign was one of those rare periods of

French history during which the mental unity of
France was complete.

This unity could not outlive him. On the

morrow of his fall all the old parties reappeared, and

have survived until the present day. Some attach

themselves to traditional influences; others violently

reject them.
If this long conflict had been between

believers and the indifferent, it could not have

lasted, for indifference is always tolerant; but the
struggle was really between two different beliefs.

The lay Church very soon assumed a religious

aspect, and its pretended rationalism has become,

especially in recent years, a barely attenuated form
of the narrowest clerical spirit. Now, we have

shown that no conciliation is possible between
dissimilar religious beliefs. The clericals when in

power could not therefore show themselves more
tolerant towards freethinkers than these latter are

to-day toward the clericals.
These divisions, determined by differences

of belief, were complicated by the addition of the
political conceptions derived from those beliefs.

Many simple souls have for long believed

that the real history of France began with the year I.

of the Republic. This rudimentary conception is at

last dying out. Even the most rigid revolutionaries

renounce it,[10] and are quite willing to recognise
that the past was something better than an epoch of

black barbarism dominated by low superstitions.

[10] We may judge of the recent evolution

of ideas upon this point by the following passage

from a speech by M. Jaures, delivered in the

Chamber of Deputies: ``The greatness of to-day is
built of the efforts of past centuries. France is not

contained in a day nor in an epoch, but in the
succession of all days, all periods, all her twilights

and all her dawns.''
The religious origin of most of the political

beliefs held in France inspires their adepts with an
inextinguishable hatred which always strikes

foreigners with amazement.
``Nothing is more obvious, nothing is more

certain,'' writes Mr. Barret-Wendell, in his book on

France, ``than this fact: that not only have the

royalists, revolutionaries, and Bonapartists always

been mortally opposed to one another, but that,

owing to the passionate ardour of the French
character, they have always entertained a profound

intellectual horror for one another. Men who believe

themselves in possession of the truth cannot refrain
from affirming that those who do not think with

them are instruments of error.

`Èach party will gravely inform you that

the advocates of the adverse cause are afflicted by
a dense stupidity or are consciously dishonest. Yet

when you meet these latter, who will say exactly the
same things as their detractors, you cannot but

recognise, in all good faith, that they are neither
stupid nor dishonest.''

This reciprocal execration of the believers of
each party has always facilitated the overthrow of

Governments and ministers in France. The parties
in the minority will never refuse to ally themselves

against the triumphant party. We know that a great

number of revolutionary Socialists have been

elected to the present Chamber only by the aid of

the monarchists, who are still as unintelligent as

they were at the time of the Revolution.
Our religious and political differences do not

constitute the only cause of dissension in France.

They are held by men possessing that particular
mentality which I have already described under the

name of the revolutionary mentality. We have seen

that each period always presents a certain number

of individuals ready to revolt against the established
order of things, whatever that may be, even though

it may realise all their desires.
The intolerance of the parties in France, and

their desire to seize upon power, are further
favoured by the conviction, so prevalent under the

Revolution, that societies can be remade by means
of laws. The modern State, whatever its leader, has

inherited in the eyes of the multitudes and their
leaders the mystic power attributed to the ancient

kings, when these latter were regarded as an

incarnation of the Divine will. Not only the people is

inspired by this confidence in the power of

Government; all our legislators entertain it also.[11]
[11] After the publication of an article of

mine concerning legislative illusions, I received from

one of our most eminent politicians, M. Boudenot
the senator, a letter from which I extract the

following passage: ``Twenty years passed in the

Chamber and the Senate have shown me how right

you are. How many times I have heard my
colleagues say: `The Government ought to prevent

this, order that,' &c. What would you have? there
are fourteen centuries of monarchical atavism in our

blood.''
Legislating always, politicians never realise

that as institutions are effects, and not causes, they
have no virtue in themselves. Heirs to the great

revolutionary illusion, they do not see that man is
created by a past whose foundations we are

powerless to reshape. The conflict between the

principles dividing France, which has lasted more

than a century, will doubtless continue for a long

time yet, and no one can foresee what fresh

upheavals it may engender. No doubt if before our
era the Athenians could have divined that their

social dissensions would have led to the

enslavement of Greece, they would have renounced
them; but how could they have foreseen as much?

M. Guiraud justly writes: `À generation of men

very rarely realises the task which it is

accomplishing. It is preparing for the future; but
this future is often the contrary of what it wishes.''

2. Summary of a Century's Revolutionary
Movement in France.

The psychological causes of the
revolutionary movements which France has seen

during the past century having been explained, it
will now suffice to present a summary picture of

these successive revolutions.
The sovereigns in coalition having defeated

Napoleon, they reduced France to her former limits,
and placed Louis XVIII., the only possible sovereign,

on the throne.
By a special charter the new king accepted

the position of a constitutional monarch under a

representative system of government. He

recognised all the conquests of the Revolution: the

civil Code, equality before the law, liberty of
worship, irrevocability of the sale of national
property, &c. The right of suffrage, however, was

limited to those paying a certain amount in taxes.

This liberal Constitution was opposed by the
ultra-royalists. Returned emigres, they wanted the

restitution of the national property, and the re-
establishment of their ancient privileges.

Fearing that such a reaction might cause a
new revolution, Louis XVIII. was reduced to

dissolving the Chamber. The election having
returned moderate deputies, he was able to

continue to govern with the same principles,
understanding very well that any attempt to govern

the French by the ancien regime would be enough to

provoke a general rebellion.

Unfortunately, his death, in 1824, placed

Charles X., formerly Comte d'Artois, on the throne.

Extremely narrow, incapable of understanding the
new world which surrounded him, and boasting that

he had not modified his ideas since 1789, he

prepared a series of reactionary laws--a law by
which an indemnity of forty millions sterling was to

be paid to emigres; a law of sacrilege; and laws

establishing the rights of primogeniture, the

preponderance of the clergy, &c.
The majority of the deputies showing

themselves daily more opposed to his projects, in
1830 he enacted Ordinances dissolving the

Chamber, suppressing the liberty of the Press, and
preparing for the restoration of the ancien regime.

The effect was immediate. This autocratic
action provoked a coalition of the leaders of all

parties. Republicans, Bonapartists, Liberals,
Royalists--all united in order to raise the Parisian

populace. Four days after the publication of the

Ordinances the insurgents were masters of the

capital, and Charles X. fled to England.

The leaders of the movement--Thiers,

Casimir-Perier, La Fayette, &c.--summoned to Paris
Louis-Philippe, of whose existence the people were

scarcely aware, and declared him king of the

French.
Between the indifference of the people and

the hostility of the nobles, who had remained

faithful to the legitimate dynasty, the new king

relied chiefly upon the bourgeoisie. An electoral law
having reduced the electors to less than 200,000,

this class played an exclusive part in the
government.

The situation of the sovereign was not easy.
He had to struggle simultaneously against the

legitimist supporters of Henry V. the grandson of
Charles X., and the Bonapartists, who recognised as

their head Louis-Napoleon, the Emperor's nephew,
and finally against the republicans.

By means of their secret societies,

analogous to the clubs of the Revolution, the latter

provoked numerous riots at various intervals

between 1830 and 1840, but these were easily

repressed.
The clericals and legitimists, on their side,

did not cease their intrigues. The Duchess de Berry,

the mother of Henry V., tried in vain to raise the
Vendee. As to the clergy, their demands finally

made them so intolerable that an insurrection broke

out, in the course of which the palace of the

archbishop of Paris was sacked.
The republicans as a party were not very

dangerous, as the Chamber sided with the king in
the struggle against them. The minister Guizot,

who advocated a strong central power, declared that
two things were indispensable to government--

``reason and cannon.'' The famous statesman was
surely somewhat deluded as to the necessity or

efficacy of reason.
Despite this strong central power, which in

reality was not strong, the republicans, and above

all the Socialists, continued to agitate. One of the

most influential, Louis Blanc, claimed that it was the

duty of the Government to procure work for every

citizen. The Catholic party, led by Lacordaire and
Montalembert, united with the Socialists--as to-day

in Belgium--to oppose the Government.

A campaign in favour of electoral reform
ended in 1848 in a fresh riot, which unexpectedly

overthrew Louis-Philippe.

His fall was far less justifiable than that of

Charles X. There was little with which he could be
reproached. Doubtless he was suspicious of

universal suffrage, but the French Revolution had
more than once been quite suspicious of it. Louis-

Philippe not being, like the Directory, an absolute
ruler, could not, as the latter had done, annul

unfavourable elections.
A provisional Government was installed in

the Hotel de Ville, to replace the fallen monarchy. It
proclaimed the Republic, established universal

suffrage, and decreed that the people should

proceed to the election of a National Assembly of

nine hundred members.

From the first days of its existence the new

Government found itself the victim of socialistic
manoeuvres and riots.

The psychological phenomena observed

during the first Revolution were now to be witnessed
again. Clubs were formed, whose leaders sent the

people from time to time against the Assembly, for

reasons which were generally quite devoid of

common sense--for example, to force the
Government to support an insurrection in Poland,

&c.
In the hope of satisfying the Socialists,

every day more noisy and exigent, the Assembly
organised national workshops, in which the workers

were occupied in various forms of labour. In these
100,000 men cost the State more than L40,000

weekly. Their claim to receive pay without working
for it forced the Assembly to close the workshops.

This measure was the origin of a formidable

insurrection, 50,000 workers revolting. The

Assembly, terrified, confided all the executive

powers to General Cavaignac. There was a four-

days battle with the insurgents, during which three
generals and the Archbishop of Paris were killed;

3,000 prisoners were deported by the Assembly to

Algeria, and revolutionary Socialism was annihilated
for a space of fifty years.

These events brought Government stock

down from 116 to 50 francs. Business was at a

standstill. The peasants, who thought themselves
threatened by the Socialists, and the bourgeois,

whose taxes the Assembly had increased by half,
turned against the Republic, and when Louis-

Napoleon promised to re-establish order he found
himself welcomed with enthusiasm. A candidate for

the position of President of the Republic, who
according to the new Constitution must be elected

by the whole body of citizens, he was chosen by
5,500,000 votes.

Very soon at odds with the Chamber, the

prince decided on a coup d'etat. The Assembly was

dissolved; 30,000 persons were arrested, 10,000

deported, and a hundred deputies were exiled.

This coup d'etat, although summary, was
very favourably received, for when submitted to a

plebiscite it received 7,500,000 votes out of

8,000,000.
On the 2nd of November, 1852, Napoleon

had himself named Emperor by an even greater

majority: The horror which the generality of

Frenchmen felt for demagogues and Socialists had
restored the Empire.

In the first part of its existence it constituted
an absolute Government, and during the latter half

a liberal Government. After eighteen years of rule
the Emperor was overthrown by the revolution of

the 4th of September, 1870, after the capitulation of
Sedan.

Since that time revolutionary movements
have been rare; the only one of importance was the

revolution of March, 1871, which resulted in the

burning of many of the monuments of Paris and the

execution of about 20,000 insurgents.

After the war of 1870 the electors, who,

amid so many disasters, did not know which way to
turn, sent a great number of Orleanist and legitimist

deputies to the Constituent Assembly. Unable to

agree upon the establishment of a monarchy, they
appointed M. Thiers President of the Republic, later

replacing him by Marshal MacMahon. In 1876 the

new elections, like all those that have followed, sent

a majority of republicans to the Chamber.
The various assemblies which have

succeeded to this have always been divided into
numerous parties, which have provoked

innumerable changes of ministry.
However, thanks to the equilibrium resulting

from this division of parties, we have for forty years
enjoyed comparative quiet. Four Presidents of the

Republic have been overthrown without revolution,
and the riots that have occurred, such as those of

Champagne and the Midi, have not had serious

consequences.

A great popular movement, in 1888, did

nearly overthrow the Republic for the benefit of

General Boulanger, but it has survived and
triumphed over the attacks of all parties.

Various reasons contribute to the

maintenance of the present Republic. In the first
place, of the conflicting factions none is strong

enough to crush the rest. In the second place, the

head of the State being purely decorative, and

possessing no power, it is impossible to attribute to
him the evils from which the country may suffer,

and to feel sure that matters would be different
were he overthrown. Finally, as the supreme power

is distributed among thousands of hands,
responsibilities are so disseminated that it would be

difficult to know where to begin. A tyrant can be
overthrown, but what can be done against a host of

little anonymous tyrannies?
If we wished to sum up in a word the great

transformations which have been effected in France

by a century of riots and revolutions, we might say

that individual tyranny, which was weak and

therefore easily overthrown, has been replaced by

collective tyrannies, which are very strong and
difficult to destroy. To a people avid of equality and

habituated to hold its Governments responsible for

every event individual tyranny seemed
insupportable, while a collective tyranny is readily

endured, although generally much more severe.

The extension of the tyranny of the State

has therefore been the final result of all our
revolutions, and the common characteristic of all

systems of government which we have known in
France. This form of tyranny may be regarded as a

racial ideal, since successive upheavals of France
have only fortified it. Statism is the real political

system of the Latin peoples, and the only system
that receives all suffrages. The other forms of

government--republic, monarchy, empire--represent
empty labels, powerless shadows.


PART III

THE RECENT EVOLUTION OF THE
REVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES


CHAPTER I THE PROGRESS OF DEMOCRATIC

BELIEFS SINCE THE REVOLUTION
1. Gradual Propagation of Democratic Ideas

after the Revolution.
Ideas which are firmly established,

incrusted, as it were, in men's minds, continue to
act for several generations. Those which resulted

from the French Revolution were, like others,
subject to this law.

Although the life of the Revolution as a
Government was short, the influence of its principles

was, on the contrary, very long- lived. Becoming a
form of religious belief, they profoundly modified the

orientation of the sentiments and ideas of several

generations.

Despite a few intervals, the French

Revolution has continued up to the present, and still

survives. The role of Napoleon was not confined to

overturning the world, changing the map of Europe,
and remaking the exploits of Alexander. The new
rights of the people, created by the Revolution and

established by its institutions, have exercised a

profound influence. The military work of the
conqueror was soon dissolved, but the revolutionary

principles which he contributed to propagate have
survived him.

The various restorations which followed the
Empire caused men at first to become somewhat

forgetful of the principles of the Revolution. For fifty
years this propagation was far from rapid. One

might almost have supposed that the people had
forgotten them. Only a small number of theorists

maintained their influence. Heirs to the

``simplicist'' spirit of the Jacobins, believing, like

them, that societies can be remade from top to

bottom by the laws, and persuaded that the Empire

had only interrupted the task of revolution, they
wished to resume it.

While waiting until they could recommence,

they attempted to spread the principles of the
Revolution by means of their writings. Faithful

imitators of the men of the Revolution, they never

stopped to ask if their schemes for reform were in

conformity with human nature. They too were
erecting a chimerical society for an ideal man, and

were persuaded that the application of their dreams
would regenerate the human species. Deprived of

all constructive power, the theorists of all the ages
have always been very ready to destroy. Napoleon

at St. Helena stated that `ìf there existed a
monarchy of granite the idealists and theorists

would manage to reduce it to powder.'' Among the
galaxy of dreamers such as Saint-Simon, Fourier,

Pierre Leroux, Louis Blanc, Quinet, &c., we find that

only Auguste Comte understood that a

transformation of manners and ideas must precede

political reorganisation.
Far from favouring the diffusion of
democratic ideas, the projects of reform of the

theorists of this period merely impeded their

progress. Communistic Socialism, which several of
them professed would restore the Revolution, finally

alarmed the bourgeoisie and even the working-

classes. We have already seen that the fear of their

ideas was one of the principal causes of the
restoration of the Empire.

If none of the chimerical lucubrations of the
writers of the first half of the nineteenth century

deserve to be discussed, it is none the less
interesting to examine them in order to observe the

part played by religious and moral ideas which to-
day are regarded with contempt. Persuaded that a

new society could not, any more than the societies
of old, be built up without religious and moral

beliefs, the reformers were always endeavouring to

found such beliefs.

But on what could they be based? Evidently

on reason. By means of reason men create

complicated machines: why not therefore a religion
and a morality, things which are apparently so

simple? Not one of them suspected the fact that no

religious or moral belief ever had rational logic as its
basis. Auguste Comte saw no more clearly. We

know that he founded a so-called positivist religion,

which still has a few followers. Scientists were to

form a clergy directed by a new Pope, who was to
replace the Catholic Pope.

All these conceptions--political, religious, or
moral--had, I repeat, no other results for a long

time than to turn the multitude away from
democratic principles.

If these principles did finally become
widespread, it was not on account of the theorists,

but because new conditions of life had arisen.
Thanks to the discoveries of science, industry

developed and led to the erection of immense

factories. Economic necessities increasingly

dominated the wills of Governments and the people

and finally created a favourable soil for the

extension of Socialism, and above all of
Syndicalism, the modern forms of democratic ideas.

2. The Unequal Influence of the Three

Fundamental Principles of the Revolution.
The heritage of the Revolution is summed
up in its entirety in the one phrase--Liberty,

equality, and Fraternity. The principle of equality,

as we have seen, has exerted a powerful influence,
but the two others did not share its lot.

Although the sense of these terms seems
clear enough, they were comprehended in very

different fashions according to men and times. We
know that the various interpretation of the same

words by persons of different mentality has been
one of the most frequent causes of the conflicts of

history.
To the member of the Convention liberty

signified merely the exercise of its unlimited

despotism. To a young modern `ìntellectual'' the

same word means a general release from everything

irksome: tradition, law, superiority, &c. To the

modern Jacobin liberty consists especially in the
right to persecute his adversaries.

Although political orators still occasionally

mention liberty in their speeches, they have
generally ceased to evoke fraternity. It is the

conflict of the different classes and not their alliance

that they teach to-day. Never did a more profound

hatred divide the various strata of society and the
political parties which lead them.

But while liberty has become very doubtful
and fraternity has completely vanished, the principle

of equality has grown unchecked. It has been
supreme in all the political upheavals of which

France has been the stage during the last century,
and has reached such a development that our

political and social life, our laws, manners, and
customs are at least in theory based on this

principle. It constitutes the real legacy of the

Revolution. The craving for equality, not only before

the law, but in position and fortune, is the very pivot

of the last product of democracy: Socialism. This

craving is so powerful that it is spreading in all
directions, although in contradiction with all

biological and economic laws. It is a new phase of

the interrupted struggle of the sentiments against
reason, in which reason so rarely triumphs.

3. The Democracy of the `Ìntellectuals'' and

Popular Democracy.
All ideas that have hitherto caused an

upheaval of the world of men have been subject to
two laws: they evolve slowly, and they completely

change their sense according to the mentalities in
which they find reception.

A doctrine may be compared to a living
being. It subsists only by process of transformation.

The books are necessarily silent upon these
variations, so that the phase of things which they

establish belongs only to the past. They do not
reflect the image of the living, but of the dead. The

written statement of a doctrine often represents the

most negligible side of that doctrine.

I have shown in another work how

institutions, arts, and languages are modified in

passing from one people to another, and how the

laws of these transformations differ from the truth
as stated in books. I allude to this matter now
merely to show why, in examining the subject of

democratic ideas, we occupy ourselves so little with

the text of doctrines, and seek only for the
psychological elements of which they constitute the

vestment, and the reactions which they provoke in
the various categories of men who have accepted

them.
Modified rapidly by men of different

mentalities, the original theory is soon no more than
a label which denotes something quite unlike itself.

Applicable to religious beliefs, these
principles are equally so to political beliefs. When a

man speaks of democracy, for example, must we

inquire what this word means to various peoples,

and also whether in the same people there is not a

great difference between the democracy of the

`ìntellectuals'' and popular democracy.
In confining ourselves now to the

consideration of this latter point we shall readily

perceive that the democratic ideas to be found in
books and journals are purely the theories of literary

people, of which the people know nothing, and by

the application of which they would have nothing to

gain. Although the working- man possesses the
theoretical right of passing the barriers which

separate him from the upper classes by a whole
series of competitions and examinations, his chance

of reaching them is in reality extremely slight.
The democracy of the lettered classes has

no other object than to set up a selection which
shall recruit the directing classes exclusively from

themselves. I should have nothing to say against
this if the selection were real. It would then

constitute the application of the maxim of Napoleon:

``The true method of government is to employ the

aristocracy, but under the forms of democracy.''

Unhappily the democracy of the

`ìntellectuals'' would simply lead to the
substitution of the Divine right of kings by the

Divine right of a petty oligarchy, which is too often

narrow and tyrannical. Liberty cannot be created by
replacing a tyranny.
Popular democracy by no means aims at

manufacturing rulers. Dominated entirely by the

spirit of equality and the desire to ameliorate the lot
of the workers, it rejects the idea of fraternity, and

exhibits no anxiety in respect of liberty. No
government is conceivable to popular democracy

except in the form of an autocracy. We see this, not
only in history, which shows us that since the

Revolution all despotic Governments have been
vigorously acclaimed, but also in the autocratic

fashion in which the workers' trades unions are
conducted.

This profound distinction between the

democracy of the lettered classes and popular

democracy is far more obvious to the workers than

to the intellectuals. In their mentalities there is

nothing in common; the two classes do not speak
the same language. The syndicalists emphatically

assert to-day that no alliance could possibly exist

between them and the politicians of the bourgeoisie.
This assertion is strictly true.

It was always so, and this, no doubt, is why

popular democracy, from Plato's to our own times,

has never been defended by the great thinkers.
This fact has greatly struck Emile Faguet.

`Àlmost all the thinkers of the nineteenth
century,'' he says, ``were not democrats. When I

was writing my Politiques et moralistes du XIXe
siecle this was my despair. I could not find one who

had been a democrat; yet I was extremely anxious
to find one so that I could give the democratic

doctrine as formulated by him.''
The eminent writer might certainly have

found plenty of professional politicians, but these

latter rarely belong to the category of thinkers.

4. Natural Inequalities and Democratic

Equalisation.

The difficulty of reconciling democratic

equalisation with natural inequalities constitutes one

of the most difficult problems of the present hour.

We know what are the desires of democracy. Let us
see what Nature replies to these demands.
The democratic ideas which have so often

shaken the world from the heroic ages of Greece to

modern times are always clashing with natural
inequalities. Some observers have held, with

Helvetius, that the inequality between men is
created by education.

As a matter of fact, Nature does not know
such a thing as equality. She distributes unevenly

genius, beauty, health, vigour, intelligence, and all
the qualities which confer on their possessors a

superiority over their fellows.
No theory can alter these discrepancies, so

that democratic doctrines will remain confined to

words until the laws of heredity consent to unify the

capacities of men.

Can we suppose that societies will ever

succeed in establishing artificially the equality
refused by Nature?

A few theorists have believed for a long time

that education might effect a general levelling.
Many years of experience have shown the depth of

this illusion.

It would not, however, be impossible for a

triumphant Socialism to establish equality for a time
by rigorously eliminating all superior individuals.

One can easily foresee what would become of a
people that had suppressed its best individuals while

surrounded by other nations progressing by means
of their best individuals.

Not only does Nature not know equality, but
since the beginning of the ages she has always

realised progress by means of successive
differentiations--that is to say, by increasing

inequalities. These alone could raise the obscure

cell of the early geological periods to the superior

beings whose inventions were to change the face of

the earth.
The same phenomenon is to be observed in
societies. The forms of democracy which select the

better elements of the popular classes finally result

in the creation of an intellectual aristocracy, a result
the contrary of the dream of the pure theorists, to

beat down the superior elements of society to the

level of the inferior elements.

On the side of natural law, which is hostile
to theories of equality, are the conditions of modern

progress. Science and industry demand more and
more considerable intellectual efforts, so that

mental inequalities and the differences of social
condition which spring from them cannot but

become accentuated.
We therefore observe this striking

phenomenon: as laws and institutions seek to level
individuals the progress of civilisation tends still

further to differentiate them. From the peasant to

the feudal baron the intellectual difference was not

great, but from the working-man to the engineer it

is immense and is increasing daily.

Capacity being the principal factor of
progress, the capable of each class rise while the

mediocre remain stationary or sink. What could

laws do in the face of such inevitable necessities?
In vain do the incapable pretend that,

representing number, they also represent force.

Deprived of the superior brains by whose researches

all workers profit, they would speedily sink into
poverty and anarchy.

The capital role of the elect in modern
civilisation seems too obvious to need pointing out.

In the case of civilised nations and barbarian
peoples, which contain similar averages of

mediocrities, the superiority of the former arises
solely from the superior minds which they contain.

The United States have understood this so
thoroughly that they forbid the immigration of

Chinese workers, whose capacity is identical with

that of American workers, and who, working for

lower wages, tend to create a formidable

competition with the latter. Despite these evidences

we see the antagonism between the multitude and
the elect increasing day by day. At no period were

the elect more necessary, yet never were they

supported with such difficulty.
One of the most solid foundations of

Socialism is an intense hatred of the elect. Its

adepts always forget that scientific, artistic, and

industrial progress, which creates the strength of a
country and the prosperity of millions of workers, is

due solely to a small number of superior brains.
If the worker makes three times as much

to-day as he did a hundred years ago, and enjoys
commodities then unknown to great nobles, he owes

it entirely to the elect.
Suppose that by some miracle Socialism had

been universally accepted a century ago. Risk,
speculation, initiative--in a word, all the stimulants

of human activity--being suppressed, no progress

would have been possible, and the worker would

have remained as poor as he was. Men would

merely have established that equality in poverty

desired by the jealousy and envy of a host of
mediocre minds. Humanity will never renounce the

progress of civilisation to satisfy so low an ideal.


CHAPTER II THE RESULTS OF DEMOCRATIC

EVOLUTION
1. The Influence upon Social Evolution of

Theories of no Rational Value.
We have seen that natural laws do not agree

with the aspirations of democracy. We know, also,
that such a statement has never affected doctrines

already in men's minds. The man led by a belief
never troubles about its real value.

The philosopher who studies a belief must
obviously discuss its rational content, but he is more

concerned with its influences upon the general
mind.

Applied to the interpretation of all the great

beliefs of history, the importance of this distinction

is at once evident. Jupiter, Moloch, Vishnu, Allah,

and so many other divinities, were, no doubt, from

the rational point of view, mere illusions, yet their

effect upon the life of the peoples has been
considerable.
The same distinction is applicable to the

beliefs which prevailed during the Middle Ages.

Equally illusory, they nevertheless exercised as
profound an influence as if they had corresponded

with realities.
If any one doubts this, let him compare the

domination of the Roman Empire and that of the
Church of Rome. The first was perfectly real and

tangible, and implied no illusion. The second, while
its foundations were entirely chimerical, was fully as

powerful. Thanks to it, during the long night of the
Middle Ages, semi-barbarous peoples acquired those

social bonds and restraints and that national soul

without which there is no civilisation.

The power possessed by the Church proves,

again, that the power of certain illusions is

sufficiently great to create, at least momentarily,
sentiments as contrary to the interests of the

individual as they are to that of society--such as the

love of the monastic life, the desire for martyrdom,
the crusades, the religious wars, &c.

The application to democratic and socialistic

ideas of the preceding considerations shows that it

matters little that these ideas have no defensible
basis. They impress and influence men's minds,

and that is sufficient. Their results may be
disastrous in the extreme, but we cannot prevent

them.
The apostles of the new doctrines are quite

wrong in taking so much trouble to find a rational
basis for their aspirations. They would be far more

convincing were they to confine themselves to
making affirmations and awakening hopes. Their

real strength resides in the religious mentality which

is inherent in the heart of man, and which during

the ages has only changed its object.

Later on we shall consider from a

philosophical point of view various consequences of
the democratic evolution whose course we see

accelerating. We may say in respect of the Church

in the Middle Ages that it had the power of
profoundly influencing the mentality of men.

Examining certain results of the democratic

doctrines, we shall see that the power of these is no

less than that of the Church.
2. The Jacobin Spirit and the Mentality created

by Democratic Beliefs.
Existing generations have inherited, not

only the revolutionary principles but also the special
mentality which achieves their success.

Describing this mentality when we were
examining the Jacobin spirit, we saw that it always

endeavours to impose by force illusions which it
regards as the truth. The Jacobin spirit has finally

become so general in France and in other Latin
countries that it has affected all political parties,

even the most conservative. The bourgeoisie is

strongly affected by it, and the people still more so.

This increase of the Jacobin spirit has

resulted in the fact that political conceptions,

institutions, and laws tend to impose themselves by

force. Syndicalism, peaceful enough in other
countries, immediately assumed in France an
uncompromising and anarchical aspect, which

betrayed itself in the shape of riots, sabotage, and

incendiarism.
Not to be repressed by timid Governments,

the Jacobin spirit produces melancholy ravages in
minds of mediocre capacity. At a recent congress of

railway men a third of the delegates voted approval
of sabotage, and one of the secretaries of the

Congress began his speech by saying: `Ì send all
saboteurs my fraternal greeting and all my

admiration.''
This general mentality engenders an

increasing anarchy. That France is not in a

permanent state of anarchy is, as I have already

remarked, due to the fact that the parties by which

she is divided produce something like equilibrium.

They are animated by a mortal hatred for one
another, but none of them is strong enough to

enslave its rivals.

This Jacobin intolerance is spreading to such
an extent that the rulers themselves employ without

scruple the most revolutionary tactics with regard to

their enemies, violently persecuting any party that

offers the least resistance, and even despoiling it of
its property. Our rulers to-day behave as the

ancient conquerors used; the vanquished have
nothing to hope from the victors.

Far from being peculiar to the lower orders,
intolerance is equally prominent among the ruling

classes. Michelet remarked long ago that the
violence of the cultivated classes is often greater

than that of the people. It is true that they do not
break the street lamps, but they are ready enough

to cause heads to be broken. The worst violence of

the revolution was the work of cultivated

bourgeoisie--professors, lawyers, &c., possessors of

that classical education which is supposed to soften

the manners. It has not done so in these days, any
more than it did of old. One can make sure of this

by reading the advanced journals, whose

contributors and editors are recruited chiefly from
among the professors of the University.

Their books are as violent as their articles,

and one wonders how such favourites of fortune can

have secreted such stores of hatred.
One would find it hard to credit them did

they assure us that they were consumed by an
intense passion for altruism. One might more

readily admit that apart from a narrow religious
mentality the hope of being remarked by the mighty

ones of the day, or of creating a profitable
popularity, is the only possible explanation of the

violence recommended in their written propaganda.
I have already, in one of my preceding

works, cited some passages from a book written by

a professor at the College of France, in which the

author incites the people to seize upon the riches of

the bourgeoisie, whom he furiously abuses, and

have arrived at the conclusion that a new revolution
would readily find among the authors of such books

the Marats, Robespierres, and Carriers whom it

might require.
The Jacobin religion--above all in its

Socialist form--has all the power of the ancient

faiths over feeble minds Blinded by their faith, they

believe that reason is their guide, but are really
actuated solely by their passions and their dreams.

The evolution of democratic ideas has thus
produced not only the political results already

mentioned, but also a considerable effect upon the
mentality of modern men.

If the ancient dogmas have long ago
exhausted their power, the theories of democracy

are far from having lost theirs, and we see their
consequences increasing daily. One of the chief

results has been the general hatred of superiority.

This hatred of whatever passes the average

in social fortune or intelligence is to-day general in

all classes, from the working- classes to the upper

strata of the bourgeoisie. The results are envy,
detraction, and a love of attack, of raillery, of

persecution, and a habit of attributing all actions to

low motives, of refusing to believe in probity,
disinterestedness, and intelligence.

Conversation, among the people as among

the most cultivated Frenchmen, is stamped with the

craze for abasing and abusing everything and
everyone. Even the greatest of the dead do not

escape this tendency. Never were so many books
written to depreciate the merit of famous men, men

who were formerly regarded as the most precious
patrimony of their country.

Envy and hatred seem from all time to have
been inseparable from democratic theories, but the

spread of these sentiments has never been so great
as to-day. It strikes all observers.

``There is a low demagogic instinct,'' writes

M. Bourdeau, ``without any moral inspiration,

which dreams of pulling humanity down to the

lowest level, and for which any superiority, even of

culture, is an offence to society. . . it is the
sentiment of ignoble equality which animated the

Jacobin butchers when they struck off the head of a

Lavoisier or a Chenier.
This hatred of superiority, the most

prominent element in the modern progress of

Socialism, is not the only characteristic of the new

spirit created by democratic ideas.
Other consequences, although indirect, are

not less profound. Such, for example, are the
progress of ``statism,'' the diminution of the power

of the bourgeoisie, the increasing activity of
financiers, the conflict of the classes, the vanishing

of the old social constraints, and the degradation of
morality.

All these effects are displayed in a general
insubordination and anarchy. The son revolts

against the father, the employee against his patron,

the soldier against his officers. Discontent, hatred,

and envy reign throughout.

A social movement which continues is

necessarily like a machine in movement which
accelerates its motion. We shall therefore find that

the results of this mentality will become yet more

important. It is betrayed from time to time by
incidents whose gravity is daily increasing--railway

strikes, postmen's strikes, explosions on board

ironclads, &c. A propos of the destruction of the

Liberte, which cost more than two million pounds
and slew two hundred men in the space of a minute,

an ex-Minister of Marine, M. de Lanessan, expresses
himself as follows:--

''The evil that is gnawing at our fleet is the
same as that which is devouring our army, our

public administrations, our parliamentary system,
our governmental system, and the whole fabric of

our society. This evil is anarchy--that is to say,
such a disorder of minds and things that nothing is

done as reason would dictate, and no one behaves

as his professional or moral duty should require him

to behave.''

On the subject of the catastrophe of the

Liberte, which followed that of the Iena, M. Felix
Roussel said, in a speech delivered as president of

the municipal council of Paris:--

``The causes of the evil are not peculiar to
our day. The evil is more general, and bears a triple

name: irresponsibility, indiscipline, and anarchy.''

These quotations, which state facts with

which everyone is familiar, show that the staunchest
upholders of the republican system themselves

recognise the progress of social disorganisation.[12]
Everyone sees it, while he is conscious of his own

impotence to change anything. It results, in fact,
from mental influences whose power is greater than

that of our wills.

[12] This disorder is the same in all the
Government departments Interesting examples will

be found in a report of M. Dausset to the Municipal

Council:--

``The service of the public highways, which

ought above all to be noted for its rapid execution,

is, on the contrary, the very type of red-tape,
bureaucratic, and ink-slinging administration,

possessing men and money and wasting both in

tasks which are often useless, for lack of order,
initiative, and method--in a word, of organisation.

Speaking then of the directors of

departments, each of whom works as he pleases,

and after his own fashion, he adds:--
``These important persons completely

ignore one another; they prepare and execute their
plans without knowing anything of what their

neighbours are doing; there is no one above them
to group and co-ordinate their work.'' This is why a

road is often torn up, repaired, and then torn up
again a few days later, because the departments

dealing with the supply of water, gas, electricity,
and the sewers are mutually jealous, and never

attempt to work together. This anarchy and

indiscipline naturally cost enormous sums of money,

and a private firm which operated in this manner

would soon find itself bankrupt.
3. Universal Suffrage and its Representatives.

Among the dogmas of democracy perhaps

the most fundamental of all and the most attractive
is that of universal suffrage. It gives the masses

the idea of equality, since for a moment at least rich

and poor, learned and ignorant, are equal before the

electoral urn. The minister elbows the least of his
servants, and during this brief moment the power of

one is as great as the others.
All Governments, including that of the

Revolution, have feared universal suffrage. At a
first glance, indeed, the objections which suggests

themselves are numerous. The idea that the
multitude could usefully choose the men capable of

governing, that individuals of indifferent morality,
feeble knowledge, and narrow minds should

possess, by the sole fact of number, a certain talent

for judging the candidate proposed for its selection

is surely a shocking one.

From a rational point of view the suffrage of

numbers is to a certain extent justified if we think
with Pascal.

``Plurality is the best way, because it is

visible and has strength to make itself obeyed; it is,
however, the advice of the less able.''

As universal suffrage cannot in our times be

replaced by any other institution, we must accept it

and try to adapt it. It is accordingly useless to
protest against it or to repeat with the queen Marie

Caroline, at the time of her struggle with Napoleon:
``Nothing is more dreadful than to govern men in

this enlightened century, when every cobbler
reasons and criticises the Government.''

To tell the truth, the objections are not
always as great as they appear. The laws of the

psychology of crowds being admitted, it is very
doubtful whether a limited suffrage would give a

much better choice of men than that obtained by

universal suffrage.

These same psychological laws also show us

that so-called universal suffrage is in reality a pure

fiction. The crowd, save in very rare cases, has no
opinion but that of its leaders. Universal suffrage

really represents the most limited of suffrages.

There justly resides its real danger.
Universal suffrage is made dangerous by the fact

that the leaders who are its masters are the

creatures of little local committees analogous to the

clubs of the Revolution. The leader who canvasses
for a mandate is chosen by them.

Once nominated, he exercises an absolute
local power, on condition of satisfying the interests

of his committees. Before this necessity the general
interest of the country disappears almost totally

from the mind of the elected representative.
Naturally the committees, having need of

docile servants, do not choose for this task
individuals gifted with a lofty intelligence nor, above

all, with a very high morality. They must have men

without character, without social position, and

always docile.

By reason of these necessities the servility

of the deputy in respect of these little groups which
patronise him, and without which he would be no

one, is absolute. He will speak and vote just as his

committee tells him. His political ideal may be
expressed in a few words: it is to obey, that he may

retain his post.

Sometimes, rarely indeed, and only when by

name or position or wealth he has a great prestige,
a superior character may impose himself upon the

popular vote by overcoming the tyranny of the
impudent minorities which constitute the local

committees.
Democratic countries like France are only

apparently governed by universal suffrage. For this
reason is it that so many measures are passed

which do not interest the people and which the
people never demanded. Such were the purchase of

the Western railways, the laws respecting

congregations, &c. These absurd manifestations

merely translated the demands of fanatical local

committees, and were imposed upon deputies whom

they had chosen.
We may judge of the influence of these

committees when we see moderate deputies forced

to patronise the anarchical destroyers of arsenals, to
ally themselves with anti-militarists, and, in a word,

to obey the most atrocious demands in order to

ensure re-election. The will of the lowest elements

of democracy has thus created among the elected
representatives manners and a morality which we

can but recognise are of the lowest. The politician is
the man in public employment, and as Nietzsche

says:--
``Where public employment begins there

begins also the clamour of the great comedians and
the buzzing of venomous flies. . . . The comedian

always believes in that which makes him obtain his
best effects, in that which impels the people to

believe in him. To- morrow he will have a new faith,

and the day after to-morrow yet another. . . . All

that is great has its being far from public

employment and glory.''

4. The Craving for Reforms.
The craze for reforms imposed suddenly by

means of decrees is one of the most disastrous

conceptions of the Jacobin spirit, one of the
formidable legacies left by the Revolution. It is

among the principal factors of all the incessant

political upheavals of the last century in France.

One of the psychological causes of this
intense thirst for reforms arises from the difficulty of

determining the real causes of the evils complained
of. The need of explanation creates fictitious causes

of the simplest nature. Therefore the remedies also
appear simple.

For forty years we have incessantly been
passing reforms, each of which is a little revolution

in itself. In spite of all these, or rather because of
them, the French have evolved almost as little as

any race in Europe.

The slowness of our actual evolution may be

seen if we compare the principal elements of our

social life--commerce, industry, &c.--with those of

other nations. The progress of other nations--of the
Germans especially--then appears enormous, while

our own has been very slow.

Our administrative, industrial, and
commercial organisation is considerably out of date,

and is no longer equal to our new needs. Our

industry is not prospering; our marine is declining.

Even in our own colonies we cannot compete with
foreign countries, despite the enormous pecuniary

subventions accorded by the State. M. Cruppi, an
ex-Minister of Commerce, has insisted on this

melancholy decline in a recent book. Falling into the
usual errors, he believed it easy to remedy this

inferiority by new laws.
All politicians share the same opinion, which

is why we progress so slowly. Each party is
persuaded that by means of reforms all evils could

be remedied. This conviction results in struggles

such as have made France the most divided country

in the world and the most subject to anarchy.

No one yet seems to understand that

individuals and their methods, not regulations, make
the value of a people. The efficacious reforms are

not the revolutionary reforms but the trifling

ameliorations of every day accumulated in course of
time. The great social changes, like the great

geological changes, are effected by the daily

addition of minute causes. The economic history of

Germany during the last forty years proves in a
striking manner the truth of this law.

Many important events which seem to
depend more or less on hazard--as battles, for

example--are themselves subject to this law of the
accumulation of small causes. No doubt the

decisive struggle is sometimes terminated in a day
or less, but many minute efforts, slowly

accumulated, are essential to victory. We had a
painful experience of this in 1870, and the Russians

have learned it more recently. Barely half an hour

did Admiral Togo need to annihilate the Russian

fleet, at the battle of Tsushima, which finally

decided the fate of Japan, but thousands of little

factors, small and remote, determined that success.
Causes not less numerous engendered the defeat of

the Russians--a bureaucracy as complicated as ours,

and as irresponsible; lamentable material, although
paid for by its weight in gold; a system of graft at

every degree of the social hierarchy, and general

indifference to the interests of the country.

Unhappily the progress in little things which
by their total make up the greatness of a nation is

rarely apparent, produces no impression on the
public, and cannot serve the interests of politicians

at elections. These latter care nothing for such
matters, and permit the accumulation, in the

countries subject to their influence, of the little
successive disorganisations which finally result in

great downfalls.
5. Social Distinctions in Democracies and

Democratic Ideas in Various Countries.

When men were divided into castes and

differentiated chiefly by birth, social distinctions

were generally accepted as the consequences of an

unavoidable natural law.

As soon as the old social divisions were

destroyed the distinctions of the classes appeared

artificial, and for that reason ceased to be tolerated.
The necessity of equality being theoretical,
we have seen among democratic peoples the rapid

development of artificial inequalities, permitting

their possessors to make for themselves a plainly
visible supremacy. Never was the thirst for titles

and decorations so general as to-day.
In really democratic countries, such as the

United States, titles and decorations do not exert
much influence, and fortune alone creates

distinctions. It is only by exception that we see
wealthy young American girls allying themselves to

the old names of the European aristocracy. They
are then instinctively employing the only means

which will permit a young race to acquire a past that

will establish its moral framework.

But in a general fashion the aristocracy that

we see springing up in America is by no means

founded on titles and decorations. Purely financial,
it does not provoke much jealousy, because every

one hopes one day to form part of it.

When, in his book on democracy in America,
Toqueville spoke of the general aspiration towards

equality he did not realise that the prophesied

equality would end in the classification of men

founded exclusively on the number of dollars
possessed by them. No other exists in the United

States, and it will doubtless one day be the same in
Europe.

At present we cannot possibly regard France
as a democratic country save on paper, and here we

feel the necessity, already referred to, of examining
the various ideas which in different countries are

expressed by the word ``democracy.''
Of truly democratic nations we can

practically mention only England and the United

States. There, democracy occurs in different forms,

but the same principles are observed--notably, a

perfect toleration of all opinions. Religious

persecutions are unknown. Real superiority easily
reveals itself in the various professions which any

one can enter at any age if he possesses the

necessary capacity. There is no barrier to individual
effort.
In such countries men believe themselves

equal because all have the idea that they are free to

attain the same position. The workman knows he
can become foreman, and then engineer. Forced to

begin on the lower rungs of the ladder instead of
high up the scale, as in France, the engineer does

not regard himself as made of different stuff to the
rest of mankind. It is the same in all professions.

This is why the class hatred, so intense in Europe, is
so little developed in England and America.

In France the democracy is practically non-
existent save in speeches. A system of competitions

and examinations, which must be worked through in

youth, firmly closes the door upon the liberal

professions, and creates inimical and separate

classes.
The Latin democracies are therefore purely
theoretical. The absolutism of the State has

replaced monarchical absolutism, but it is no less

severe. The aristocracy of fortune has replaced that
of birth, and its privileges are no less considerable.

Monarchies and democracies differ far more

in form than in substance. It is only the variable

mentality of men that varies their effects. All the
discussions as to various systems of government are

really of no interest, for these have no special virtue
of themselves. Their value will always depend on

that of the people governed. A people effects great
and rapid progress when it discovers that it is the

sum of the personal efforts of each individual and
not the system of government that determines the

rank of a nation in the world.


CHAPTER III THE NEW FORMS OF

DEMOCRATIC BELIEF
1. The Conflict between Capital and Labour.

While our legislators are reforming and
legislating at hazard, the natural evolution of the

world is slowly pursuing its course. New interests
arise, the economic competition between nation and

nation increases in severity, the working-classes are
bestirring themselves, and on all sides we see the

birth of formidable problems which the harangues of
the politicians will never resolve.

Among these new problems one of the most

complicated will be the problem of the conflict

between labour and capital. It is becoming acute

even in such a country of tradition as England.

Workingmen are ceasing to respect the collective

contracts which formerly constituted their charter,

strikes are declared for insignificant motives, and

unemployment and pauperism are attaining
disquieting proportions.
In America these strikes would finally have

affected all industries but that the very excess of the

evil created a remedy. During the last ten years the
industrial leaders have organised great employers'

federations, which have become powerful enough to
force the workers to submit to arbitration.

The labour question is complicated in France
by the intervention of numerous foreign workers,

which the stagnation of our population has rendered
necessary.[13] This stagnation will also make it

difficult for France to contend with her rivals, whose
soil will soon no longer be able to nourish its

inhabitants, who, following one of the oldest laws of

history, will necessarily invade the less densely

peopled countries.

[13] Population of the Great Powers:--

1789. 1906.

Russia ... ... 28,000,000 129,000,000

Germany ... ... 28,000,000 57,000,000
Austria ... ... 18,000,000 44,000,000

England ... ... 12,000,000 40,000,000

France ... ... 26,000,000 39,000,000

These conflicts between the workers and
employers of the same nation will be rendered still

more acute by the increasing economic struggle
between the Asiatics, whose needs are small, and

who can therefore produce manufactured articles at
very low prices, and the Europeans, whose needs

are many. For twenty-five years I have laid stress
upon this point. General Hamilton, ex- military

attache to the Japanese army, who foresaw the
Japanese victories long before the outbreak of

hostilities, writes as follows in an essay translated

by General Langlois:--

``The Chinaman, such as I have seen him

in Manchuria, is capable of destroying the present

type of worker of the white races. He will drive him
off the face of the earth. The Socialists, who preach

equality to the labourer, are far from thinking what

would be the practical result of carrying out their
theories. Is it, then, the destiny of the white races

to disappear in the long run? In my humble opinion

this destiny depends upon one single factor: Shall

we or shall we not have the good sense to close our
ears to speeches which present war and preparation

for war as a useless evil?
`Ì believe the workers must choose. Given

the present constitution of the world, they must
cultivate in their children the military ideal, and

accept gracefully the cost and trouble which
militarism entails, or they will be let in for a cruel

struggle for life with a rival worker of whose success
there is not the slightest doubt. There is only one

means of refusing Asiatics the right to emigrate, to

lower wages by competition, and to live in our

midst, and that is the sword. If Americans and

Europeans forget that their privileged position is

held only by force of arms, Asia will soon have taken
her revenge.''

We know that in America the invasion of

Chinese and Japanese, owing to the competition
between them and the workers of white race, has

become a national calamity. In Europe the invasion

is commencing, but has not as yet gone far. But

already Chinese emigrants have formed important
colonies in certain centres-- London, Cardiff,

Liverpool, &c. They have provoked several riots by
working for low wages. Their appearance has

always lowered salaries.
But these problems belong to the future,

and those of the present are so disquieting that it is
useless at the moment to occupy ourselves with

others.
2. The Evolution of the Working-Classes and the

Syndicalist Movement.
The most important democratic problem of

the day will perhaps result from the recent

development of the working-class engendered by

the Syndicalist or Trades Union movement.

The aggregation of similar interests known

as Syndicalism has rapidly assumed such enormous

developments in all countries that it may be called
world-wide. Certain corporations have budgets
comparable to those of small States. Some German

leagues have been cited as having saved over three

millions sterling in subscriptions.
The extension of the labour movement in all

countries shows that it is not, like Socialism, a
dream of Utopian theorists, but the result of

economic necessities. In its aim, its means of
action, and its tendencies, Syndicalism presents no

kinship with Socialism. Having sufficiently explained
it in my Political Psychology, it will suffice here to

recall in a few words the difference between the two
doctrines.

Socialism would obtain possession of all

industries, and have them managed by the State,

which would distribute the products equally between

the citizens. Syndicalism, on the other hand, would

entirely eliminate the action of the State, and divide
society into small professional groups which would

be self-governing.
Although despised by the Syndicalists and
violently attacked by them, the Socialists are trying

to ignore the conflict, but it is rapidly becoming too

obvious to be concealed. The political influence

which the Socialists still possess will soon escape
them.

If Syndicalism is everywhere increasing at
the expense of Socialism, it is, I repeat, because

this corporative movement, although a renewal of
the past, synthetises certain needs born of the

specialisation of modern industry.
We see its manifestations under a great

variety of circumstances. In France its success has
not as yet been as great as elsewhere. Having

taken the revolutionary form already mentioned, it

has fallen, at least for the time being, into the hands

of the anarchists, who care as little for Syndicalism

as for any sort of organisation, and are simply using

the new doctrine in an attempt to destroy modern
society. Socialists, Syndicalists, and anarchists,

although directed by entirely different conceptions,

are thus collaborating in the same eventual aim--the
violent suppression of the ruling classes and the

pillage of their wealth.

The Syndicalist doctrine does not in any way

derive from the principles of Revolution. On many
points it is entirely in contradiction with the

Revolution. Syndicalism represents rather a return
to certain forms of collective organisation similar to

the guilds or corporations proscribed by the
Revolution. It thus constitutes one of those

federations which the Revolution condemned. It
entirely rejects the State centralisation which the

Revolution established.
Syndicalism cares nothing for the

democratic principles of liberty, equality, and

fraternity. The Syndicalists demand of their

members an absolute discipline which eliminates all

liberty.
Not being as yet strong enough to exercise
mutual tyranny, the syndicates so far profess

sentiments in respect of one another which might by

a stretch be called fraternal. But as soon as they
are sufficiently powerful, when their contrary

interests will necessarily enter into conflict, as

during the Syndicalist period of the old Italian

republics--Florence and Siena, for example--the
present fraternity will speedily be forgotten, and

equality will be replaced by the despotism of the
most powerful.

Such a future seems near at hand. The new
power is increasing very rapidly, and finds the

Governments powerless before it, able to defend
themselves only by yielding to every demand--an

odious policy, which may serve for the moment, but
which heavily compromises the future.

It was, however, to this poor recourse that

the English Government recently resorted in its

struggle against the Miners' Union, which threatened

to suspend the industrial life of England. The Union

demanded a minimum wage for its members, but
they were not bound to furnish a minimum of work.

Although such a demand was inadmissible,

the Government agreed to propose to Parliament a
law to sanction such a measure. We may profitably

read the weighty words pronounced by Mr. Balfour

before the House of Commons:--

``The country has never in its so long and
varied history had to face a danger of this nature

and this importance.
``We are confronted with the strange and

sinister spectacle of a mere organisation threatening
to paralyse--and paralysing in a large measure--the

commerce and manufactures of a community which
lives by commerce and manufacture.

``The power possessed by the miners is in
the present state of the law almost unlimited. Have

we ever seen the like of it? Did ever feudal baron

exert a comparable tyranny? Was there ever an

American trust which served the rights which it

holds from the law with such contempt of the

general interest? The very degree of perfection to
which we have brought our laws, our social

organisation, the mutual relation between the

various professions and industries, exposes us more
than our predecessors in ruder ages to the grave

peril which at present threatens society. . . . We

are witnesses at the present moment of the first

manifestation of the power of elements which, if we
are not heedful, will submerge the whole of society.

. . . The attitude of the Government in yielding to
the injunction of the miners gives some appearance

of reality to the victory of those who are pitting
themselves against society.''

3. Why certain modern Democratic
Governments are gradually being transformed into

Governments by Administrative Castes.
Anarchy and the social conflicts resulting

from democratic ideas are to-day impelling some
Governments towards an unforeseen course of

evolution which will end by leaving them only a

nominal power. This development, of which I shall

briefly denote the effects, is effected spontaneously

under the stress of those imperious necessities

which are still the chief controlling power of events.

The Governments of democratic countries
to-day consist of the representatives elected by
universal suffrage. They vote laws, and appoint and

dismiss ministers chosen from themselves, and

provisionally entrusted with the executive power.
These ministers are naturally often replaced, since a

vote will do it. Those who follow them, belonging to
a different party, will govern according to different

principles.
It might at first seem that a country thus

pulled to and fro by various influences could have no
continuity or stability. But in spite of all these

conditions of instability a democratic Government
like that of France works with fair regularity. How

explain such a phenomenon?

Its interpretation, which is very simple,

results from the fact that the ministers who have

the appearance of governing really govern the

country only to a very limited extent. Strictly
limited and circumscribed, their power is exercised

principally in speeches which are hardly noticed and

in a few inorganic measures.
But behind the superficial authority of

ministers, without force or duration, the playthings

of every demand of the politician, an anonymous

power is secretly at work whose might is continually
increasing the administrations. Possessing

traditions, a hierarchy, and continuity, they are a
power against which, as the ministers quickly

realise, they are incapable of struggling.[14]
Responsibility is so divided in the administrative

machine that a minister may never find himself
opposed by any person of importance. His

momentary impulses are checked by a network of
regulations, customs, and decrees, which are

continually quoted to him, and which he knows so

little that he dare not infringe them.

[14] The impotence of ministers in their own

departments has been well described by one of
them, M. Cruppi, in a recent book. The most ardent

wishes of the minister being immediately paralysed

by his department, he promptly ceases to struggle
against it.

This diminution of the power of democratic

Governments can only develop. One of the most
constant laws of history is that of which I have

already spoken: Immediately any one class
becomes preponderant--nobles, clergy, army, or the

people--it speedily tends to enslave others. Such
were the Roman armies, which finally appointed and

overthrew the emperors; such were the clergy,
against whom the kings of old could hardly struggle;

such were the States General, which at the moment
of Revolution speedily absorbed all the powers of

government, and supplanted the monarchy.

The caste of functionaries is destined to

furnish a fresh proof of the truth of this law.

Preponderant already, they are beginning to speak

loudly, to make threats, and even to indulge in
strikes, such as that of the postmen, which was

quickly followed by that of the Government railway

employees. The administrative power thus forms a
little State within the State, and if its present rate of

revolution continues it will soon constitute the only

power in the State. Under a Socialist Government

there would be no other power. All our revolutions
would then have resulted in stripping the king of his

powers and his throne in order to bestow them upon
the irresponsible, anonymous and despotic class of

Government clerks.
To foresee the issue of all the conflicts which

threaten to cloud the future is impossible. We must
steer clear of pessimism as of optimism; all we can

say is that necessity will always finally bring things
to an equilibrium. The world pursues its way

without bothering itself with our speeches, and

sooner or later we manage to adapt ourselves to the

variations of our environment. The difficulty is to do

so without too much friction, and above all to resist

the chimerical conceptions of dreamers. Always
powerless to re-organise the world, they have often

contrived to upset it.

Athens, Rome, Florence, and many other
cities which formerly shone in history, were victims

of these terrible theorists. The results of their

influence has always been the same--anarchy,

dictatorship, and decadence.
But such lessons will not affect the

numerous Catilines of the present day. They do not
yet see that the movements unchained by their

ambitions threaten to submerge them. All these
Utopians have awakened impossible hopes in the

mind of the crowd, excited their appetites, and
sapped the dykes which have been slowly erected

during the centuries to restrain them.
The struggle of the blind multitudes against

the elect is one of the continuous facts of history,

and the triumph of popular sovereignties without

counterpoise has already marked the end of more

than one civilisation. The elect create, the plebs

destroys. As soon as the first lose their hold the
latter begins its precious work.

The great civilisations have only prospered

by dominating their lower elements. It is not only in
Greece that anarchy, dictatorship, invasion, and,

finally, the loss of independence has resulted from

the despotism of a democracy. Individual tyranny is

always born of collective tyranny. It ended the first
cycle of the greatness of Rome; the Barbarians

achieved the second.


CONCLUSIONS

The principal revolutions of history have
been studied in this volume. But we have dealt

more especially with the most important of all--that
which for more than twenty years overwhelmed all

Europe, and whose echoes are still to be heard.
The French Revolution is an inexhaustible

mine of psychological documents. No period of the
life of humanity has presented such a mass of

experience, accumulated in so short a time.
On each page of this great drama we have

found numerous applications of the principles

expounded in my various works, concerning the

transitory mentality of crowds and the permanent

soul of the peoples, the action of beliefs, the

influence of mystic, affective, and collective
elements, and the conflict between the various

forms of logic.
The Revolutionary Assemblies illustrate all
the known laws of the psychology of crowds.

Impulsive and timid, they are dominated by a small

number of leaders, and usually act in a sense

contrary to the wishes of their individual members.
The Royalist Constituent Assembly

destroyed an ancient monarchy; the humanitarian
Legislative Assembly allowed the massacres of

September. The same pacific body led France into
the most formidable campaigns.

There were similar contradictions during the
Convention. The immense majority of its members

abhorred violence. Sentimental philosophers, they
exalted equality, fraternity, and liberty, yet ended

by exerting the most terrible despotism.

The same contradictions were visible during

the Directory. Extremely moderate in their

intentions at the outset, the Assemblies were

continually effecting bloodthirsty coups d'etat. They
wished to re-establish religious peace, and finally

sent thousands of priests into imprisonment. They

wished to repair the ruins which covered France,
and only succeeded in adding to them.

Thus there was always a complete

contradiction between the individual wills of the men

of the revolutionary period and the deeds of the
Assemblies of which they were units.

The truth is that they obeyed invisible forces
of which they were not the masters. Believing that

they acted in the name of pure reason, they were
really subject to mystic, affective, and collective

influences, incomprehensible to them, and which we
are only to-day beginning to understand.

Intelligence has progressed in the course of
the ages, and has opened a marvellous outlook to

man, although his character, the real foundation of

his mind, and the sure motive of his actions, has

scarcely changed. Overthrown one moment, it

reappears the next. Human nature must be

accepted as it is.
The founders of the Revolution did not

resign themselves to the facts of human nature. For

the first time in the history of humanity they
attempted to transform men and society in the

name of reason.

Never was any undertaking commenced with

such chances of success. The theorists, who
claimed to effect it, had a power in their hands

greater than that of any despot.
Yet, despite this power, despite the success

of the armies, despite Draconian laws and repeated
coups d'etat, the Revolution merely heaped ruin

upon ruin, and ended in a dictatorship.
Such an attempt was not useless, since

experience is necessary to the education of the
peoples. Without the Revolution it would have been

difficult to prove that pure reason does not enable

us to change human nature, and, consequently, that

no society can be rebuilt by the will of legislators,

however absolute their power.

Commenced by the middle classes for their
own profit, the Revolution speedily became a

popular movement, and at the same time a struggle

of the instinctive against the rational, a revolt
against all the constraints which make civilisation

out of barbarism. It was by relying on the principle

of popular sovereignty that the reformers attempted

to impose their doctrines. Guided by leaders, the
people intervened incessantly in the deliberations of

the Assemblies, and committed the most sanguinary
acts of violence.

The history of the multitudes during the
Revolution is eminently instructive. It shows the

error of the politicians who attribute all the virtues
to the popular soul.

The facts of the Revolution teach us, on the
contrary, that a people freed from social constraints,

the foundations of civilisation, and abandoned to its

instinctive impulses, speedily relapses into its

ancestral savagery. Every popular revolution which

succeeds in triumphing is a temporary return to

barbarism. If the Commune of 1871 had lasted, it
would have repeated the Terror. Not having the

power to kill so many people, it had to confine itself

to burning the principal monuments of the capital.
The Revolution represents the conflict of

psychological forces liberated from the bonds whose

function it is to restrain them. Popular instincts,

Jacobin beliefs, ancestral influences, appetites, and
passions unloosed, all these various influences

engaged in a furious mutual conflict for the space of
ten years, during which time they soaked France in

blood and covered the land with ruins.
Seen from a distance, this seems to be the

whole upshot of the Revolution. There was nothing
homogeneous about it. One must resort to analysis

before one can understand and grasp the great
drama and display the impulses which continually

actuated its heroes. In normal times we are guided

by the various forms of logic--rational, affective,

collective, and mystic--which more or less perfectly

balance one another. During seasons of upheaval

they enter into conflict, and man is no longer
himself.

We have by no means undervalued in this

work the importance of certain acquisitions of the
Revolution in respect of the rights of the people.

But with many other historians, we are forced to

admit that the prize gained at the cost of such ruin

and bloodshed would have been obtained at a later
date without effort, by the mere progress of

civilisation. For a few years gained, what a load of
material disaster, what moral disintegration! We

are still suffering as a result of the latter. These
brutal pages in the book of history will take long to

efface: they are not effaced as yet.
Our young men of to-day seem to prefer

action to thought. Disdaining the sterile
dissertations of the philosophers, they take no

interest in vain speculation concerning matters

whose essential nature remains unknown.

Action is certainly an excellent thing, and all

real progress is a result of action, but it is only

useful when properly directed. The men of the
Revolution were assuredly men of action, yet the

illusions which they accepted as guides led them to

disaster.
Action is always hurtful when, despising

realities, it professes violently to change the course

of events. One cannot experiment with society as

with apparatus in a laboratory. Our political
upheavals show us what such social errors may

cost.
Although the lesson of the Revolution was

extremely categorical, many unpractical spirits,
hallucinated by their dreams, are hoping to

recommence it. Socialism, the modern synthesis of
this hope, would be a regression to lower forms of

evolution, for it would paralyse the greatest sources
of our activity. By replacing individual initiative and

responsibility by collective initiative and

responsibility mankind would descend several steps

on the scale of human values.

The present time is hardly favourable to

such experiments. While dreamers are pursuing
their dreams, exciting appetites and the passions of

the multitude, the peoples are every day arming

themselves more powerfully. All feel that amid the
universal competition of the present time there is no

room for weak nations.

In the centre of Europe a formidable military

Power is increasing in strength, and aspiring to
dominate the world, in order to find outlets for its

goods, and for an increasing population, which it will
soon be unable to nourish.

If we continue to shatter our cohesion by
intestine struggles, party rivalries, base religious

persecutions, and laws which fetter industrial
development, our part in the world will soon be

over. We shall have to make room for peoples more
solidly knit, who have been able to adapt

themselves to natural necessities instead of

pretending to turn back upon their course. The

present does not repeat the past, and the details of

history are full of unforeseen consequences; but in

their main lines events are conditioned by eternal
laws.


Psychology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF

4. SOCIAL ELEMENTS WHICH SURVIVE THE CHANGES OF

CHAPTER V THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE

3. THE PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS OF THE BOURGEOISIE AT THE

3. ILLUSIONS RESPECTING THE THEORETICAL VALUE OF THE

BOOK II THE RATIONAL, AFFECTIVE,

3. THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY. 265

3. THE END OF THE CONVENTION. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE

CHAPTER VII PSYCHOLOGY OF THE LEADERS OF

3. THE ADVENT OF BONAPARTE.410

2. SUMMARY OF A CENTURY'S REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT IN

1. THE INFLUENCE UPON SOCIAL EVOLUTION OF THEORIES OF

THE JACOBIN SPIRIT

Among the events whose study seemed

which the Revolution evoked from the possibilities of

E-Text Conversion By Nalanda Digital Library 11

been so utilised hitherto. Historians have generally

E-Text Conversion By Nalanda Digital Library 12

civilisations, had not done much to throw light upon

E-Text Conversion By Nalanda Digital Library 13

collectivities known as crowds. Now these crowds

the factor of beliefs. How are these beliefs born,

long taught? Are they not rather unconscious and

independent of all reason? A difficult question,

So long as psychology regards beliefs as

Having proved that they are usually irrational and

E-Text Conversion By Nalanda Digital Library 14

solution of this important problem; how it was that

overrule the reason and engender the generative

This fact well established, it seemed to me

evident that if a great number of historical events

has very little influence upon their genesis.

summed up in a few lines, demanded long years for

E-Text Conversion By Nalanda Digital Library 15

them, I abandoned them more than once to return

instances, and was thus led to deal with the

Proceeding in the analysis of our great

one by one, although I had considered them

To explain this period we must consider it as

E-Text Conversion By Nalanda Digital Library 16

composed of phenomena simultaneous but

dictated by invisible forces.

the inevitable progression of logics

incomprehensible to them we see them as greatly

the invisible powers which forced them to act. They

weakness. They spoke in the name of reason,

E-Text Conversion By Nalanda Digital Library 17

was by no means reason that impelled them.

only from a few of such, and is often powerless

origin could scarcely be ruled. The scientist knows

how to destroy the microbe before it has time to

When any question gives rise to violently

belongs to the province of beliefs and not to that of

E-Text Conversion By Nalanda Digital Library 18

We have shown in a preceding work that

rational elements, it is developed only by the aid of

The historians who have judged the events

logic did not dictate them. As the actors of these

not be far from the truth in saying that our