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！
independent of all reason？ A difficult question； which I dealt
with in my last book； Opinions and Beliefs。
So long as psychology regards beliefs as voluntary and rational
they will remain inexplicable。 Having proved that they are
usually irrational and always involuntary； I was able to propound
the solution of this important problem； how it was that beliefs
which no reason could justify were admitted without
difficulty by the most enlightened spirits of all ages。
The solution of the historical difficulties which had so long
been sought was thenceforth obvious。 I arrived at the conclusion
that beside the rational logic which conditions thought； and was
formerly regarded as our sole guide； there exist very different
forms of logic： affective logic； collective logic； and mystic
logic； which usually overrule the reason and engender the
generative impulses of our conduct。
This fact well established； it seemed to me evident that if a
great number of historical events are often uncomprehended； it is
because we seek to interpret them in the light of a logic which
in reality has very little influence upon their genesis。
All these researches； which are here summed up in a few lines；
demanded long years for their accomplishment。 Despairing of
completing them； I abandoned them more than once to return to
those labours of the laboratory in which one is always sure of
skirting the truth and of acquiring fragments at least of
certitude。
But while it is very interesting to explore the world of material
phenomena； it is still more so to decipher men； for which reason
I have always been led back to psychology。
Certain principles deduced from my researches appearing likely to
prove fruitful； I resolved to apply them to the study of concrete
instances； and was thus led to deal with the Psychology of
Revolutionsnotably that of the French Revolution。
Proceeding in the analysis of our great Revolution； the
greater part of the opinions determined by the reading of books
deserted me one by one； although I had considered them
unshakable。
To explain this period we must consider it as a whole； as many
historians have done。 It is composed of phenomena simultaneous
but independent of one another。
Each of its phases reveals events engendered by psychological
laws working with the regularity of clockwork。 The actors in
this great drama seem to move like the characters of a previously
determined drama。 Each says what he must say； acts as he is
bound to act。
To be sure； the actors in the revolutionary drama differed from
those of a written drama in that they had not studied their
parts； but these were dictated by invisible forces。
Precisely because they were subjected to the inevitable
progression of logics incomprehensible to them we see them as
greatly astonished by the events of which they were the heroes as
are we ourselves。 Never did they suspect the invisible powers
which forced them to act。 They were the masters neither of their
fury nor their weakness。 They spoke in the name of reason；
pretending to be guided by reason； but in reality it was by no
means reason that impelled them。
‘‘The decisions for which we are so greatly reproached；'' wrote
Billaud…Varenne； ‘‘were more often than otherwise not intended or
desired by us two days or even one day beforehand： the crisis
alone evoked them。''
Not that we must consider the events of the Revolution as
dominated by an imperious fatality。 The readers of our works
will know that we recognise in the man of superior qualities the
role of averting fatalities。 But he can dissociate himself
only from a few of such； and is often powerless before the
sequence of events which even at their origin could scarcely be
ruled。 The scientist knows how to destroy the microbe before it
has time to act； but he knows himself powerless to prevent the
evolution of the resulting malady。
When any question gives rise to violently contradictory opinions
we may be sure that it belongs to the province of beliefs and not
to that of knowledge。
We have shown in a preceding work that belief； of unconscious
origin and independent of all reason； can never be influenced by
reason。
The Revolution； the work of believers； has seldom been judged by
any but believers。 Execrated by some and praised by others； it
has remained one of those dogmas which are accepted or rejected
as a whole； without the intervention of rational logic。
Although in its beginnings a religious or political revolution
may very well be supported by rational elements； it is developed
only by the aid of mystic and affective elements which are
absolutely foreign to reason。
The historians who have judged the events of the French
Revolution in the name of rational logic could not comprehend
them； since this form of logic did not dictate them。 As the
actors of these events themselves understood them but ill； we
shall not be far from the truth in saying that our
Revolution was a phenomenon equally misunderstood by those
who caused it and by those who have described it。 At no period
of history did men so little grasp the present； so greatly ignore
the past； and so poorly divine the future。
。 。 。 The power of the Revolution did not reside in the
principleswhich for that matter were anything but novelwhich
it sought to propagate； nor in the institutions which it sought
to found。 The people cares very little for institutions and even
less for doctrines。 That the Revolution was potent indeed； that
it made France accept the violence； the murders； the ruin and the
horror of a frightful civil war； that finally it defended itself
victoriously against a Europe in arms； was due to the fact that
it had founded not a new system of government but a new religion。
Now history shows us how irresistible is the might of a strong
belief。 Invincible Rome herself had to bow before the armies of
nomad shepherds illuminated by the faith of Mahommed。 For the
same reason the kings of Europe could not resist the
tatterdemalion soldiers of the Convention。 Like all apostles；
they were ready to immolate themselves in the sole end of
propagating their beliefs； which according to their dream were to
renew the world。
The religion thus founded had the force of other religions； if
not their duration。 Yet it did not perish without leaving
indelible traces； and its influence is active still。
We shall not consider the Revolution as a clean sweep in
history； as its apostles believed it。 We know that to
demonstrate their intention of creating a world distinct from the
old they initiated a new era and professed to break entirely with
all vestiges of the past。
But the past never dies。 It is even more truly within us than
without us。 Against their will the reformers of the Revolution
remained saturated with the past； and could only continue； under