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.”
