3. 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'être. 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 régime 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. Vigée Lebrun relates that on the
promenade at Longchamps men of the people
leaped on the footboards of the carriages, saying, “Next year
you will be behind and we shall be inside.”
The populace was not alone in manifesting insubordination
and discontent. These sentiments were general on the eve of the
Revolution. “The lesser clergy,” says Taine, “are
hostile to the prelates; the provincial gentry to the nobility of
the court; the vassals to the seigneurs; the peasants to the
townsmen,” &c.
This state of mind, which had been communicated from the
nobles and clergy to the people, also invaded the army. At the
moment the States General were opened Necker said: “We are
not sure of the troops.” The officers were becoming
humanitarian and philosophical. The soldiers, recruited from the
lowest class of the population, did not philosophise, but they no
longer obeyed.
In their feeble minds the ideas of equality meant simply
the suppression of all leaders and masters, and therefore of all
obedience. In 1790 more than twenty régiments 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 régime.
“It was the defection of the army affected by the ideas of
the Third Estate,” wrote Rivarol, “that destroyed
royalty.”
2. The supposed Influence of the Philosophers of the
Eighteenth Century upon the Genesis of the 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
rôle in Greek history was familiar to them, was
generally highly antipathetic to them. They were not ignorant of
the destruction and violence which are its invariable
accompaniments, and knew that in the time of Aristotle it was
already defined as “a State in which everything, even the
law, depends on the multitude set up as a tyrant and governed by
a few declamatory speakers.”
Pierre Bayle, the true forerunner of Voltaire, recalled in
the following terms the consequences of popular government in
Athens:—
“If one considers this history, which displays at
great length the tumult of the assemblies, the factions dividing
the city, the seditious disturbing it, the most illustrious
subjects persecuted, exiled, and punished by death at the will of
a violent windbag, one would conclude that this people, which so
prided itself on its liberty, was really the slave of a small
number of caballers, whom they called demagogues, and who made it
turn now in this direction, now in that, as their passions
changed, almost as the sea heaps the waves now one way, now
another, according to the winds which trouble it. You will seek
in vain in Macedonia, which was a monarchy, for as many examples
of tyranny as Athenian history will afford.”
Montesquieu had no greater admiration for the democracy.
Having described the three forms of 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 Encyclopædists, to whom such a
considerable rôle is attributed, they hardly dealt
with
politics, excepting d'Holbach, a liberal monarchist like Voltaire
and Diderot. They wrote chiefly in defence of individual
liberty, opposing the encroachments of the Church, at that time
extremely intolerant and inimical to philosophers. Being neither
Socialists nor democrats, the Revolution could not utilise any of
their principles.
Voltaire himself was by no means a partisan of democracy.
“Democracy,” he said, “seems only to suit a
very small country, and even then it must be fortunately
situated. Little as it may be, it will make many mistakes,
because it will be composed of men. Discord will prevail there
as in a convent full of monks; but there will be no St.
Bartholomew's day, no Irish massacres, no Sicilian Vespers, no
Inquisition, no condemnation to the galleys for having taken
water from the sea without paying for it; unless we suppose this
republic to be composed of devils in a corner of hell.”
All these men who are supposed to have inspired the
Revolution had opinions which were far from subversive, and it is
really difficult to see that they had any real influence on the
development of the revolutionary movement. Rousseau was one of
the very few democratic philosophers of his age, which is why his
Contrat Social became the Bible of the men of the Terror.
It seemed to furnish the rational justification necessary to
excuse the acts deriving from unconscious mystic and affective
impulses which no philosophy had inspired.
To be quite truthful, the democratic instincts of Rousseau
were by no means above suspicion. He himself considered that his
projects for social reorganisation, based upon popular
sovereignty, could be applied only to a very small State; and
when the Poles asked him for a draft democratic Constitution he
advised them to choose a hereditary monarch.
Among the theories of Rousseau that relating to the
perfection of the primitive social state had a great success. He
asserted, together with various writers of his time, that
primitive mankind was perfect; it was corrupted only by society.
By modifying society by means of good laws one might bring back
the
happiness of the early world. Ignorant of all psychology, he
believed that men were the same throughout time and space and
that they could all be ruled by the same laws and institutions.
This was then the general belief. “The vices and virtues of
the people,” wrote Helvetius, “are always a necessary
effect of its legislation. . . . How can we doubt that virtue is
in the case of all peoples the result of the wisdom, more or less
perfect, of the administration?”
There could be no greater mistake.
3. The Philosophical Ideas of the Bourgeoisie at the
Time of the Revolution.
It is by no means easy to say just what were the social and
political conceptions of a Frenchman of the middle classes at the
moment of the Revolution. They might be reduced to a few
formulæ 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 Scævola, 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.
