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): “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 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 “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 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 sub-prefect 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.
