按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
‘‘Everywhere；'' 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 RevolutionThiers； 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will doubtless be long before his work is superseded。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 sourcesproceedings； pamphlets； journals； and the
speeches and writings of patriotsare 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：
‘‘At 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： ‘‘Everything
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 resultnot even the most unexpectedthat did
not ensue from this history； and was not explained by the