/  398
 
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution
PREFACE
 A
STROLOGERS
tell us that thehistory of the world moves incycles ; that from time totime the same forces ariseproducing eras that strangelyresemble one another.Between these eras a closeaffinity exists, and so it is thatwe, in looking back to thepast from the world crisis of to-day, realize that periodswhich in times of peace havesoothed or thrilled us havenow lost their meaning, thatthe principles which inspiredthem have no place in ourphilosophy. The Renaissanceis dead ; the Reformation isdead ; even the great wars of bygone days seem dwarfedby the immensity of therecent conflict. But whilstthe roar of battle dies downanother sound is heard—theangry murmur that arose in1789 and that, thoughmomentarily hushed, hasnever lost its force. Oncemore we are in the cycle of revolution.The French Revolution is no dead event ; in turning over the contemporary records of those tremendous days we feel that we are touching live things ; from the yellowedpages voices call to us, voices that still vibrate with the passions that stirred them morethan a century ago—here the desperate appeal for liberty and justice, there the trumpet-call of “ King and Country ” ; now the story told with tears of death faced gloriously,
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_00.html (1 of 8)5.4.2006 10:39:25
 
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution
now a maddened scream of rage against a fellow-man. When in all the history of theworld until the present day has human nature shown itself so terrible and so sublime ?And is not the fascination that amazing epoch has ever since exercised over the minds of men owing to the fact that the problems it held are still unsolved, that the samemovements which originated with it are still at work amongst us ? “ What we learn to-day from the study of the Great Revolution,” the anarchist Prince Kropotkin wrote in1908, “ is that it was the source and origin of all the present communist, anarchist, andsocialist conceptions.” Indeed Kropotkin goes so far as to declare that “ up till now,modern socialism has added absolutely nothing to the ideas that were circulating amongthe French people between 1789 and 1794, and which it was tried to put into practice inthe year II. of the Republic (
i.e.
in the Reign of Terror). Modern socialism has onlysystematised those ideas and found arguments in their favour,” etc. Now since theFrench Revolution still remains the one and only occasion in the history of the worldwhen those theories were put into practice on a large scale, and carried out to theirlogical conclusion—for the experiment in Russia is as yet unfinished—it is surely worthwhile to know the true facts about that first upheaval. So far, in England, the truth is notknown ; we have not even been told what really happened. “ As to a real history of theFrench Revolution,” Lord Cromer wrote to me a few months before his death, “ no suchthing exists in the English language, for Carlyle, besides being often very inaccurate andprejudiced, produced merely a philosophical rhapsody. It is well worth reading, but it isnot history.” Yet it is undoubtedly on Carlyle’s rhapsody that our national conceptionsof the Revolution are founded ; the great masterpiece of Dickens was built up on thismythological basis, whilst the old histories of Alison and Morse Stephens, and even theilluminating
Essays
of Croker, lack the power to rouse the popular imagination.
[1]
Thusthe legend created by Carlyle has never been dispelled.During the last few years the French Revolution has become less a subject for historicalresearch than the theme of the popular journalist who sees in that lurid period material tobe written up with profit. This being so, accuracy plays no part in his scheme. For theart of successful journalism is not to illuminate the public mind but to reflect it, to tell itin even stronger terms what it thinks already, and therefore to confirm rather than todispel popular delusions.But if the Revolution is to be regarded as the supreme experiment in democracy, if itsprinciples are to be held up for our admiration and its methods advocated as an exampleto our own people, is it not time that some effort were made to counteract that “conspiracy of history ” that in France also, as M. Gustave Bord points out, has hithertoconcealed the real facts concerning it ? Shall we not at last cease from rhapsody andconsider the matter calmly and scientifically in its effects on the people ? This, after all,
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_00.html (2 of 8)5.4.2006 10:39:25
 
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution
is the main issue—how was the experiment a success from the people’s point of view ?Strangely enough, though it was in their cause that the Revolution was ostensibly made,the people are precisely the portion of the nation that by Royalist and Revolutionarywriters alike have been most persistently overlooked—the Royalists occupyingthemselves mainly with the trials of the monarchy and aristocracy, the Revolutionarieslosing themselves in panegyrics on the popular leaders. Thus Michelet was aDantoniste, Louis Blanc a Robespierriste ; Lamartine was a Girondiste ; Thiers andMignet were Orleanistes, not only as historians but as politicians, for their exonerationof the Duc d’Orleans was only a part of their policy for placing his son Louis Philippeon the throne of France,—and consequently to all these men the people were a matteronly of secondary importance. So far no one has written the history of the movementfrom the point of view of the people themselves.In studying the Revolution as an experiment in democracy, we must clear our minds of all predilections for certain individuals. Just as the author of a treatise on the discoveryof tuberculin or on the antidote to hydrophobia devotes no space to recording thesufferings of the unhappy guinea-pigs and rabbits sacrificed in the cause of science, or indilating on the virtuous private life of Koch or Pasteur, but concerns himself solely withthe exact process adopted and the symptoms exhibited by the subjects with a view toproving or disproving the efficacy of the serums employed, so, if we would examine theRevolution as a scientific experiment, King, noblesse, and revolutionary leaders alikemust be considered only in their relation to the cause of democracy ; we must concernourselves with the people only, with the ills from which they suffered, with the meansemployed for their relief, with the part they themselves played in the great movement,and finally the results that were achieved. By this means alone we shall do justice to thatbrave and brilliant people by whose side we have fought to-day ; we shall come tounderstand that they were not the blind unreasoning herd portrayed by Taine, theenraged “ hyenas ” of Horace Walpole, nor yet, as revolutionary writers would have usbelieve, a nation of slaves brought by long years of oppression to a pitch of exasperationthat found a vent in the crimes and horrors of the Revolution.It is on this last theory that popular opinion in England on the Revolution is founded,and that might, I think, be epitomized thus : “ The French Revolution was in itself apurely beneficial movement, inspired by the desire for liberty and justice : unhappily itwent too far and produced excesses which, though deplorable, were nevertheless theunavoidable accompaniment to the regeneration of the country.” Now this statement isas illogical as it is unjust ; how could a movement that was purely beneficial “ go too far” ? How could the desire of the people for liberty and justice be carried to excess andproduce cruelty and bloodshed such as the civilized world had never seen before ? If 
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_00.html (3 of 8)5.4.2006 10:39:25

The French Revolution. A Study in Democracy

Download this Document for FreePrint
This is a private document.

Info and Rating

curierulconservator

Share & Embed

More from this user

Add a Comment

Characters: ...

curierulconservatorleft a comment

Uh-oh! I guess usernameistakenalrea didn´t take his (her?) medication today. Just in case somebody has time to waste, take a short look at his profile and all his comments, to see how qualified and useful all his contributions are.... The work of Nesta H. Webster is a clssic, her book is a reference in this matter, and -yes- of course you can find it elsewere too! LOL!
02 / 21 / 2010
Reply

Robert Kimeraleft a comment

This book has been recommended by so many people
12 / 03 / 2009
Reply