7: Psychology of the Leaders of the Revolution
Mentality of the Men of the Revolution: Violence, Indifference, and Greed
Men judge with their intelligence but are guided by their character. To understand a man fully, one must separate these two elements. And during periods of significant activity, such as a revolution, character takes precedence.
Thus far, we have seen the mystic element in the Jacobin mentality, the ferocious fanaticism to which it leads, and the way in which it overpowers timid and moderate men. In all revolutions, as in all crowds, we can observe a small minority of passionate but weak minds that imperiously dominate the immense majority of intelligent but disinterested men.
It would be a mistake to disregard the indifferent men as unimportant, as they were the most numerous and are as dangerous in reality as the violent men - because the boldness of a passionate few is licensed and facilitated by the weakness of a silent majority.
Another sort of character also emerges in political upheavals: those who seek to personally profit from the conflict. Such men were quite numerous during the French Revolution and included a great many among the revolutionary clubs, who commanded the various bands of brigands to pillage and plunder. Others sought to manipulate the political machine to profit their personal enterprises, or simply to eliminate rivals and competitors.
Psychology of Commissaries and Representatives
The behavior of the members of the conventions was always directed, restrained, or excited by the actions of their colleagues, chiefly in Paris. To assess them as individuals, uncontrolled by the threats and rewards of others, would present rather a different picture of their mentality, and one that would be entirely irrelevant to the role they played in the government of France.
As representatives, their power was not absolute and they were not at liberty to be the men they were as individuals. They lived in a constant state of fear: fear of the mobs and armed thugs, which was quite literally in fear for their own lives, considering what would be done if they drew the consternation of the Montaignards.
Even among the Montaignards, this fear was constant - with very few exceptions, none of them was free to do as he pleased, but felt the constant pressure to conform to what they perceived to be the interests of their fellows, and the fear of retaliation if they failed to do so.
Certain of their leaders regarded themselves as "pashas" -surrounded by armed guards, able to bend others to their demands, and living a lavish lifestyle of being drawn in six-horse carriages, eating sumptuous meals, attended by servants and armed guards.
In this matter, "petty lawyers without clients, doctors without patients, unfrocked clergymen, obscure attorneys who had formerly led the most colorless of lives were suddenly made the equals of the most powerful tyrants of history." A person who occupies a humble station who has gained newfound power seldom uses it responsibly, and has little care for their fellow men.
And in this regard, they were much worse than the tyrants of history, having no culture or tradition to which they were beholden and none to hold them accountable. Le Bon goes on to describe specific atrocities, chiefly the murder of thousands of people after mock trials, seemingly for their amusement, and their sadistic indifference and even pleasure in seeing other people tortured and killed.
Their notion of reforming society was a distant second to their self-indulgence, but played a major supporting role: just as with the inquisitors before them, they felt contempt for their victims, were pitiless, and even more greatly emboldened to acts of savagery and brutality with the ability to justify any action as being undertaken for a higher purpose. Those whose concern for the republic was genuine behaved no better, and on occasion quite worse, than those whose concerns were subterfuge.
Le Bon contemplates, for a time, the psychology of wanton violence and the pleasure men take in "killing for killing's sake." It gives an individual a sense of power, to deal death is to be above death and to inflict terror upon others is to be fearless, or at least to assuage one's own fear. He considers this to be a primal urge, and a kind of atavism to more barbaric times. While "civilized" men are restrained by fear of retaliation by society, viciousness is an instinct that can only be suppressed but by nor means eliminated.
Danton and Robespierre
Georges Danton and Maximilien de Robespierre represent two of the most influential figures of the revolution, and wielded enormous personal power over the legislature.
Danton had been an orator in the revolutionary clubs, and was talented at exciting the people. It is said that he was "cruel only in his speeches" and often regretted seeing the consequences of their effects. He is also described as a man who was "needy" of the approval of others, and rather timid in showing initiative on his own - but because he could act the part, people generally assumed him to be more self-directed than he actually was.
Robespierre, meanwhile, was a more integral and self-assured leader whose ferocity was genuine rather than feigned. In terms of his intelligence and vision, he was a "mediocre rival" for Danton - but his personal ambition and capacity for cruelty were unbounded.
While Danton regretted the atrocities to which his dramatic speeches incited others, Robespierre delighted in them. Robespierre was, in fact, a very poor speaker who was said to have "painfully read his speeches" which themselves were rather cold, indefinite and abstract. There is "really no acceptable explanation" of how he managed to rise to power and become the most influential politician in all of France.
It is reckoned that he did so out of ruthless ambition. Whereas Danton could rouse emotions, he could not direct them - meanwhile Robespierre was very directive, but could not rouse emotions. The user of terror tactics likely substituted for more gentle methods of persuasion, and it can be observed that men who wield power are adored, such that people apply their own passions in courting the favor of powerful men.
As such, his popularity could not be explained by his personal character. He was a rather pathetic and self-indulgent man, physically weak and dispassionate, with mediocre intelligence and a great deal of impulsiveness, pretentious and vain, who had about him the sense of a coward pretending to be a hero, and badly over-acting.
He regarded other men with "hatred and disdain" that included his peers as well as his rivals, and the bourgeoisie as well as the aristocracy. The only thing he seemed to love was power, and particularly the power to destroy. In instances, he used his political maneuvers to put to death other men simply because he was jealous of their intellect or communication skills.
(EN: This carries on for a while, painting Robespierre as model sociopath.)
His downfall was as swift and vicious as his rise to power, when his adversaries seized control of the convention and ordered him to be arrested and executed. "Nothing is more terrible than a body of men who have been afraid and are afraid no longer," Le Bon writes: Robespierre and a number of his supporters were denounced and executed in short order.
In all, Robespierre was "one of the most odious tyrants in history" and his reign is compared to that of Caligula in Rome. In all, he was "the most perfect incarnation of the Jacobin faith," in its narrow logic, intense mysticism, and inflexible rigidity.
Other Revolutionists
Le Bon spends a few paragraphs considering other leaders who were largely cut of the same cloth: ferocious, vicious, and filled with fear and hatred.
Anotine Fouqier-Tintville is of particular interest, as prior to the revolution he was reputed for his kindness, yet became a "bloodthirsty creature whose memory evokes revulsion" - and le Bon suggests he serves as a model for the kinds of transformation men undergo during times of political upheaval.
AFT had been an obscure magistrate prior to the revolution, but was appointed as public prosecutor for the Revolutionary Tribunals and the convention largely abandoned that task to him. The vicious nature of tribunal courts are attributed largely to his direction.
He is reputed to be a man with a "very inferior mind" who was scatterbrained and officious. He brought no morality or judgment to his office, but merely executed the orders of his superiors, which is likely the reason that he had been selected. When he was finally executed, he stated that he had no reason why it should be so - he had merely been a servant of the government of France and had been zealously obedient to his orders.
Another man, "Dumas," is also portrayed as a vicious coward who always displayed an excessive cruelty to others while exhibiting an intense fear: he feared everyone, including his own wife whom he had imprisoned and had slated for execution. Ultimately, Dumas barricaded himself in his house and spoke to visitors through a wicket, fearing even to step outside.
Billaud-Verne is depicted as "one of the wildest and most brutal" men of the convention who was "a perfect type of bestial ferocity." A leader of the Jacobin militia, he was tasked with massacres, which he conducted methodically and without hesitation or remorse and a "cold and impassive" temperament. He was never known to seek to gain influence or money, but took a grim pleasure in the task of mass-executions.
Finally, there is Marat, who is described as a "semi-lunatic, affected by megalomania and haunted by fixed ideas." Prior to the revolution he had been a hapless scholar and :no one attached much importance to his meanderings." When he rose to power, it was clear that he used it to exact revenge against a society who had refused to recognize his merits, and clamored incessantly for executions. Publicly, he spoke continually of the interest of the people and the ideals of the revolution, but it was clear that this was merely availing himself of any excuse for indiscriminate violence.
Members of the Convention Who Survived
Aside of those members of the convention who were motivated by twisted psychology, there were rather many whose interest were more plain and functional: they saw the upheaval as an opportunity to enrich themselves, building enormous fortunes out of public misery.
It's noted that many among the Jacobins had seemed to be fanatic loyalists to the party, but renounced their convictions as soon as they had obtained sufficient wealth to satisfy their cravings. In times of peace, such men would be considered scoundrels, corrupt government officials who misused their powers of office to amass personal wealth - but in the upheaval, their activities were largely ignored. A list of names is given, with accounts of the titles of nobility and the amounts of money they had amassed.
While we may seek to consider them immoral, immorality had little to do with their motivation: their actions had a practical goal, and morality was entirely beside the point.