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 Const.i.tution 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 a.s.serted, 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 s.p.a.ce and that they could all be ruled by the same laws and inst.i.tutions. This was then the general belief. "The vices and virtues of the people," wrote Helvetius, "are always a necessary effect of its legislation... . How can we doubt that virtue is in the case of all peoples the result of the wisdom, more or less perfect, of the administration?"
There could be no greater mistake.
3. The Philosophical Ideas of the Bourgeoisie at the Time of the Revolution.
It is by no means easy to say just what were the social and political conceptions of a Frenchman of the middle cla.s.ses 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 pa.s.sages.
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 cla.s.sical memories of Greece and Rome, the new legislators re- read their Plato and their Plutarch. They wished to revive the const.i.tution 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 a.s.semblies. 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 const.i.tutional system, of which Montesquieu and Voltaire had sung the praises, and which all nations were finally to imitate without violent crises.
Their ambitions were confined to a desire to perfect the existing monarchy, not to overthrow it. But in time of revolution men often take a very different path from that they propose to take. At the time of the convocation of the States General no one would ever have supposed that a revolution of peaceful bourgeoisie and men of letters would rapidly be transformed into one of the most sanguinary dictatorships of history.
CHAPTER IV
PSYCHOLOGICAL ILLUSIONS RESPECTING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
1. Illusions respecting Primitive Man, the Return to a State of Nature, and the Psychology of the People.
We have already repeated, and shall again repeat, that the errors of a doctrine do not hinder its propagation, so that all we have to consider here is its influence upon men"s minds.
But although the criticism of erroneous doctrines is seldom of practical utility, it is extremely interesting from a psychological point of view. The philosopher who wishes to understand the working of men"s minds should always carefully consider the illusions which they live with. Never, perhaps, in the course of history have these illusions appeared so profound and so numerous as during the Revolution.
One of the most prominent was the singular conception of the nature of our first ancestors and primitive societies. Anthropology not having as yet revealed the conditions of our remoter forbears, men supposed, being influenced by the legends of the Bible, that man had issued perfect from the hands of the Creator. The first societies were models which were afterwards ruined by civilisation, but to which mankind must return. The return to the state of nature was very soon the general cry. "The fundamental principle of all morality, of which I have treated in my writings," said Rousseau, "is that man is a being naturally good, loving justice and order."
Modern science, by determining, from the surviving remnants, the conditions of life of our first ancestors, has long ago shown the error of this doctrine. Primitive man has become an ignorant and ferocious brute, as ignorant as the modern savage of goodness, morality, and pity. Governed only by his instinctive impulses, he throws himself on his prey when hunger drives him from his cave, and falls upon his enemy the moment he is aroused by hatred. Reason, not being born, could have no hold over his instincts.
The aim of civilisation, contrary to all revolutionary beliefs, has been not to return to the state of nature but to escape from it. It was precisely because the Jacobins led mankind back to the primitive condition by destroying all the social restraints without which no civilisation can exist that they transformed a political society into a barbarian horde.
The ideas of these theorists concerning the nature of man were about as valuable as those of a Roman general concerning the power of omens. Yet their influence as motives of action was considerable. The Convention was always inspired by such ideas.
The errors concerning our primitive ancestors were excusable enough, since before modern discoveries had shown us the real conditions of their existence these were absolutely unknown. But the absolute ignorance of human psychology displayed by the men of the Revolution is far less easy to understand.
It would really seem as though the philosophers and writers of the eighteenth century must have been totally deficient in the smallest faculty of observation. They lived amidst their contemporaries without seeing them and without understanding them. Above all, they had not a suspicion of the true nature of the popular mind. The man of the people always appeared to them in the likeness of the chimerical model created by their dreams. As ignorant of psychology as of the teachings of history, they considered the plebeian man as naturally good, affectionate, grateful, and always ready to listen to reason.
The speeches delivered by members of the a.s.sembly 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 inst.i.tutions 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 inst.i.tutions. 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 superst.i.tions, 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: "A 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 inst.i.tutions, rudely shaken by the end of the Revolution, was absolute at its outbreak. Gregoire said from the tribune of the Const.i.tuent a.s.sembly, 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 ma.s.sacre 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 const.i.tutes 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 cla.s.s 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 a.s.sures us (Article 3):
"All men are equal by nature." That of 1795 is more modest and says (Article 3): "Equality 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: "All 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 G.o.d, were equal before Him, and judged solely according to their merits. The dogma of the equality of souls before G.o.d 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 "equality" 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 "equality" 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 "all 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 t.i.tles of n.o.bility 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 appet.i.te 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."