A Nation’s Heritage and Its Revolutions

Amar Murray

After taking a break from my journeys in the time machine and using the interval to record my observations, I decided it was time to travel again. A question had begun to take shape in my mind: why do revolutions and their outcomes differ so profoundly from one people to another? Some peoples rise up and burn everything, even themselves, in a revolutionary frenzy unrestrained by reason or wisdom. Theirs is a revolution of unbridled anger. Others need many long years before the first signs of calm and progress emerge. Yet others conduct revolutions with composure, balance and flexibility, achieving their aims without destroying themselves.

With this question in mind, I set out on a new series of journeys to explore different aspects of revolution. My destination was Bordeaux, France, in 1748.

I walked through the streets until I reached an inviting café and decided to go inside. The appearance and conversation of the men gathered there suggested considerable intellectual cultivation. One man was speaking; everyone else was listening. I approached a table some distance away, occupied by a single customer.

“Good day, sir. May I join you?”

“Of course. Please do.”

“Forgive my curiosity, but who is the gentleman speaking?”

“You do not know him? Ah, you must be new here. That is Monsieur Montesquieu.”

“Montesquieu, the philosopher?”

“The very same.”

“Forgive the interruption. I shall listen.”

Montesquieu was explaining the theory he had set out in The Spirit of the Laws:

“Gentlemen, there are three forms of government. In a monarchy, power is inherited but exercised within established limits. Under a dictatorship, the ruler governs alone, without legal restraint, and secures his rule by terrorizing civilians. In a republic, the people or their representatives govern. There can be no doubt that republican government is the best form, and that executive, legislative and judicial powers must be separated.”

The man beside me turned and asked, “Did you hear that? What splendid words!”

“Indeed. Montesquieu is the founding thinker whose influence will shape the constitutions of democratic systems. But does this mean that a simple peasant has the right to become a ruler?”

“No, sir. Montesquieu says that people should not move between social classes. He also believes that each class has its own distinctive character and an important place in society.”

Our conversation ended as people began to leave. A clearer picture was forming in my mind: Montesquieu was one of the intellectual fathers of the French Revolution, and a major influence on that revolution and those that followed. I decided to spend more time in his company, to understand more fully how ideas shape revolutionary events.

The Revolution adopted Montesquieu’s thought, yet it also embraced a hateful, discriminatory impulse. Hatred of those who differed became habitual. We saw it expressed in the killing of three hundred thousand peasants and in terrifying trials. In a book published in 1935 on the massacres in Parisian prisons during the Revolution, beginning on 2 September 1792, the French historian Pierre Caron writes:

“These massacres had an overwhelming ritual character. They began with attacks on several prisons, ostensibly to suppress conspiracies being hatched there to overthrow the Revolution. In the prison courtyards, the mob appointed itself arbitrator, judge and jury. Prisoners were brought forward one by one, charged and acquitted or condemned, not according to evidence or testimony, but according to their general appearance, conduct, personality and even physical build.

“Any hesitation or sign of agitation was taken as proof of guilt, warranting a death sentence. An ordinary person presided over the proceedings and pronounced judgment. His verdicts were greeted with applause and shouting from the crowds that had gathered from the surrounding streets and assumed the role of jurors. Those acquitted were embraced, congratulated and kissed, then paraded through the streets. Those condemned were stabbed with daggers and swords and beaten with heavy clubs. Their clothes were stripped away, and their bodies thrown onto the heap of those who had preceded them.”

What is remarkable is that the perpetrators committed these massacres in the name of liberty, the rights of man and citizen, justice and equality.

To be continued.