2: The Psychological Foundations of the Old Regime
(EN: IN this chapter and elsewhere, Le Bon refers to the Ancien Regime of the French monarchy. For simplicity;s sake I am abbreviating that to "old regime.")
Monarchy and the Basis of the Old Regime
Many historians agree that the Revolution was a response to monarchy, but it would be more accurate to specify that it was the government of their time, which happened to be a monarchy.
The government of France had ceased to be an absolute monarchy long before the Revolution, and throughout its history the monarchy held a greater or lesser degree of power as a consequence of its struggle with various other bodies (seigneurs, clergy, parliament, etc.) in which the king did not always win.
In some instances "the pretended master was slave of his court, his ministers, the clergy, and the nobles" and merely lent his authorization to what they had decided to do, often with great reluctance. It is a mistake to consider all kings to be autocrats, as there are periods in history where "no Frenchman was so little free as the king."
While it has been remarked that King Louis XIV held absolute power, this had declined rapidly afterward. When the Revolution took place, Louis XVI held the throne, and he was largely regarded as a figurehead, and a man who was reluctant (or perhaps even incapable) to exercise power even when it was handed to him, preferring or being compelled to cede to his parliament.
The Disunity of France Under the Old Regime
Voltaire's principle that government derives its power from the consent of its subjects is not merely a slogan for rebellion, but a constant fact: so long as the people are largely amenable to government and find its inconveniences to be inconsequential, they will abide being governed. But when enough people are sufficiently displeased with their government, they will revolt to reform or replace it.
The imperfections of the old regime that gave widespread offense to the citizens are numerous, but chief among them was the fractured nature of the nation.
Despite the apparent authority of the king and parliament, France was divided into largely independent territories, each with their own laws and customs. The provincial leaders would consider the demands of the central government, but would not infallibly comply.
Aside of material divisions, there were also social distinctions between the nobles, the clergy, and the commoners (the "third estate") each of whom were bound by certain laws and customs and exempt from those of the other classes.
The regime's support of social divisions was one of the principal causes of hatred and a sense of utter injustice - but the people of these classes, particularly of the privileged classes, were entirely supportive of this caste system.
Moreover, since one's place in society came largely by virtue of birth, there was no recourse for the commoners (who far outnumbered nobility and clergy) but revolt.
The nobility and clergy were not universally enamored of the nobility, but their disagreements were petty squabbles by comparison to the objections of the third estate.
Life Under the Old Regime
The hardships of life for the commoners under the old regime is difficult to comprehend, mainly because their dissatisfaction was a chief cause of their revolt and has been widely misrepresented and exaggerated by historians.
Those who support the revolution, and who wish to sanctify it, depict the life of the peasant as thoroughly wretched. Alternately, they may depict the motivation of the commoners to have been noble and guided by lofty ideals. Or, they may take an economic perspective to demonstrate how it became impossible to be self-sustaining while remaining obedient to the law.
It's noted that the economic argument has the greatest amount of historical evidence: as the records of businesses and government offices are thorough and reflect the financial reality of the time in terms of the ownership and transfer of property and money.
However, it should not be taken that the volume of evidence available is representative of the degree to which the people were influenced by financial motives, merely that it is more customary to keep records of financial transactions than more qualitative discontents.
Whatever the evidence cited, it is clear that life under the old regime was highly unpleasant for many people - which is entirely plausible, given that they ultimately showed a willingness to risk their lives to overthrow their government, which is not the action of a contented people.
Dissipation of Monarchical Sentiment
In the years preceding the Revolution, the love and fear of the common man was transferred from the king to his parliament. This was, in part, due to the delegation of most of his authority to that body, but also because of an abrupt change in the culture that specifically caused men to doubt in the divine power of kings - and stripped of this mystic belief, the king became a mere person, stripped of his prestige, and viewed as fallible.
The two factors caused there to be less tolerance for the whims of the nobility and greater faith in the ability of men, though it took quite some time for fear of divine retribution to release its grip and enabled commoners to openly criticize and oppose their previous rulers.
The royalist faith disappeared quickly in Paris, where the weakness of the king was most evident, but it took some time for those in the provinces to lose their faith in the king's divinity. It's even been observed that royalist sentiments remained during the Revolution - but not to sufficient degree to rally support against the uprising.