Chapter 5 Part 1 - 1

—Response to Mr. Burke's Attacks on the French Revolution Of all the insolence by which nations or individuals provoke and irritate one another, Mr. Burke's pamphlet on the French Revolution stands out as an example. Neither the French people, nor the National Assembly, have any involvement with England or the British Parliament, and Mr. Burke's unwarranted attacks on them both in Parliament and in public cannot be condoned by manners, nor can they be condoned by policy. to defend. Almost every obscenity and obscenity that can be found in the English language has been used by Mr. Burke in homage to the French people and the National Assembly.Everything that resentment, prejudice, ignorance, or knowledge can suggest rolls out in nearly four hundred pages with ferocity.With Mr. Burke's energy and planning, he could have written thousands of pages at a stretch.In a fit of rage, tongue or pen loses control, and it is the person, not the subject, who is exhausted.Mr. Burke has always been wrong about the state of affairs in France, and he himself has been disappointed, but either his hopes were so different, or his disappointments so full of malice, that he had new excuses to act rashly. go down.There was a time when Mr. Burke did not believe in any revolution in France.At that time, his opinion was that the French had neither the guts to carry out the revolution nor the stamina to support it; now that the revolution broke out, he wanted to escape by condemning it.

As if insulting the National Assembly is not enough, the book also spends a large part of the book insulting Dr. Price (one of the most kind-hearted men living today) and two British social groups known as the Revolutionary Society and the Constitutional Research Society. Dr. Price preached on November 4, 1789, the anniversary of what became known as the "Revolution" in England in 1688.Mr Burke said of the sermon: "The political clergyman went on to assert that, on the principles of the Revolution, the English people had acquired three fundamental rights. Elect your own local governor.

Remove violators of local governors. Organize your own government. " Dr. Price does not say that the right to do these things belongs to this or that, or to this or that class; but that it belongs to the whole people, and is an inherent right of the nation.Mr. Burke, on the contrary, denies that the nation has this right, not the whole people, not some people, not anywhere; a right which they will sacrifice their lives and property against." It is an invention never before seen, that men take up arms and sacrifice their lives and properties not for their rights, but for their lack of rights. Good Mr. Burke The talent for making strange talks is quite commensurate.

Mr. Burke's methods of proving that the English people have no such right, not all, not some, not anywhere, are as absurd and wonderful as his words.For his argument is that the person or generation who enjoyed this right is dead, and this right disappears with them.To prove this, he cites a statement made by the British Parliament to William and Mary some one hundred years ago: their own and their posterity's eternal obedience". He also cites a clause in another Act passed by Parliament during the same dynasty, which he says "makes us (referring to those alive at the time) and our posterity eternally responsible to them and their posterity. obliged."

Mr. Burke, thinking that his argument would be well established by these articles, enforced them by declaring that they abolished forever the rights of the nation.However, he was not satisfied with this repeated statement, and went further to say that "even if the British people enjoyed this right before the revolution (he admitted that this was the case not only in England in the early days, but in the whole of Europe), the British nationals in the revolutionary period For their own sake and for their children and grandchildren, it is extremely serious to deny and give up forever."

Whereas Mr. Burke from time to time draws poison out of these abominable principles (if it is not blasphemy to call them principles) to injure not only the English people, but the French Revolution and the National Assembly, and uses the word "usurper" against those venerable A brilliant man, past and present, so I will unceremoniously return him with another set of principles. The British Parliament in 1920 did a thing which they had a right to do, and seemed to do, as far as they and their constituencies were concerned; another right, the right to bind and control posterity forever.Thus the matter itself is divided into two parts: the rights they have been entrusted with, and the rights they have established arbitrarily.The first right is granted; but to the second I would reply as follows:

In any country there never was, never was, and never can be one parliament, or any class of men, or any generation, to have the right or power to ever bind and control posterity, or to ever prescribe how the world should be to rule, or by whom to rule; and therefore all such clauses, acts, or proclamations--by which their framers attempt to do things which they have neither right nor power to do, nor strength to enforce--are themselves Invalid.Every age and generation must act as freely for itself under all circumstances as all ages and generations before it.The wildest idea of ​​dominion after death is the most absurd and outrageous of all tyranny.One cannot take another as private property, nor can any generation make private property of future generations. The People's Assembly in 1688, or at any other time, has no power over the people of today, or to restrain and control them in any form, any more than the Parliament or the people of today have the power to dispose of, restrain or control the people a hundred or a thousand years from now.Each generation fits and must fit all the purposes that the age demands.It is the living who adapt, not the dead.When a man dies, his powers and needs cease with him; having no part in the affairs of the world, he no longer has the right to dictate who shall rule the world, or how government shall be organized and administered.

I am not arguing for or against any form of government, or any political party, here or elsewhere.All citizens have the right to do whatever they want.But Mr. Burke said, no.Where, then, do rights reside?I pleaded for the rights of the living to be annihilated, controlled, and diminished by the dead's stifled authority; Mr. Burke pleaded for the authority of the dead to prevail over the rights and liberties of the living.There was a time when kings passed their thrones by will on their deathbed, and handed over their people like beasts in the wilderness to whomever they appointed as heirs.This practice is now so thoroughly abolished that it is scarcely reminiscent, and too absurd to be believed; but the Acts of Parliament by which Mr. Burke established his political sect are things of the same nature.

The laws of every country must resemble some common principles.In England, neither parents nor parents, nor all those parliamentary authorities who profess to be omnipotent, have even the power to restrain or control the personal liberty of a person over the age of twenty-one.By what right, then, did the Parliament of 1688, or any Parliament, ever bind posterity? Those who are dead and those who are not born are so far apart from each other that the imagination cannot conceive.What obligations, then, can exist between them; what statutes or laws can be made between two non-substances, the one dead and the other mortal, never to meet in this world, whereby the one controls the other forever? What about the principle?

In the UK, it is said that money in their wallets cannot be taken without their consent.But who authorized or who could authorize the Parliament of 1688 to control and take away the liberty of future generations (who were not yet born to consent or disagree) and to forever qualify and limit their powers of action in certain circumstances? What about rights? Nothing is more absurd to the human understanding than what Mr. Burke offers his readers.He said to them and to the future world that a group of people who were alive a hundred years ago made a law, which does not exist in this country, and never will, and there will never be a power to change it.How much cunning or irrationality did theocracy take at last to rule credulous mankind!Now Mr. Burke has discovered a new divine power, by which he has shortened his way to Rome by the power of the old infallible parliament; Necessity is superhuman, human power can never be changed.

But by making those provisions public, Mr. Burke is doing a good, not to his cause, but to his country.These articles demonstrate how necessary it is to be on guard at all times against attempts to usurp power, and to prevent it from going to extremes.It is amazing that James II was expelled for the crime of establishing power without authorization, but this crime was repeated in another form and scale for the Parliament that exiled him.This shows that people's understanding of human rights during the revolutionary period was very incomplete.The power which that Parliament arrogated to establish for ever over the liberty of men and their posterity (which, being entrusted, it did not and could not have, since no one could confer upon it), was of the same kind as James II. The power to control parliaments and subjects, and thus to condemn and expel them, must be of the same character in despotism and injustice.The only difference (for there is no difference in principle) is that the one usurps the living, the other the unborn, and since the one is no more secure than the other, both must be equally All are invalid and do not work. On what grounds, or whence, did Mr. Burke prove that man has a right to bind posterity forever?He has come up with his articles, but he also has to prove that such power exists and how.If it has always existed, it must exist now, for man cannot destroy what is characteristic of man.Death is a characteristic of human beings, who are constantly born and constantly die.But Mr. Burke has fashioned a political Adam, to whom posterity is forever bound; and he must therefore prove that his Adam possesses this power, or this right. The thinner the rope, the weaker the pull, and unless you intend to break it, you shouldn't pull it.If anyone were to overthrow Mr. Burke, he would do as Mr. Burke did.He will elevate authority so much that he can challenge the legitimacy of authority which, as soon as this dissent begins, cannot stand. It only takes a little exercise of the brain to see that laws made in a certain generation, though often continued to be in force through several generations, are still in force because of the assent of the living.A law which has not been repealed remains in force, not because it cannot be repealed, but because it has not been repealed, and consent is deemed to have been given. But Mr. Burke's clause has not even this condition in his favor.They want to last forever, but instead disappear into nothingness.Their very nature precludes consent.By basing power on a right which they do not have, it ends in forfeiting the right which the texts might have had.Perpetual power is not the right of man, and therefore cannot be the right of parliaments. The Parliament of 1688 might as well have perpetuated their power by passing an act to perpetuate themselves.All that can be said of these clauses, therefore, is that they are superficial, as much as those who make use of them congratulate themselves, saying in the old Eastern way: "O long live Parliament!" The situation in the world is constantly changing, and men's opinions are changing; government is for the living, not the dead, and therefore only the living have a right to it.What is considered right and proper in one age may be considered improper and inappropriate in another.Who is in charge in this situation?By ① Adam, the so-called "ancestor of mankind" in the Bible. - translator The living or the dead? As Mr. Burke's book covers almost a hundred pages of these articles, it must follow that, if these articles, by presuming to establish powers to rule posterity forever, have no authority in themselves, and are virtually ineffective; Nor are the long lines of reasoning and eloquence upon which Mr. Kee quotes or rests upon; upon which my opinion of the matter rests. We now turn specifically to the case of France.Mr. Burke's book appears to have been written to instruct the French nation; but if I may make an excess, a metaphor which fits the excess, it is that of darkness trying to illuminate the light. As I write this, it so happens that I have before me the Marquis de Lafayette (forgive me for using his old title, it is only out of respect) July 11, 1789 - three days before the storming of the Bastille Day--Several Proposals to the National Assembly concerning the Declaration of Rights; and I cannot but be astonished at how diametrically opposed the first-hand sources from which this gentleman and Mr. Burke have drawn their principles.The Marquis de Lafayette does not, like Mr. Burke, rely on old files and moldy documents to prove that the rights of the living have been lost and "forever denied and abandoned" by those who have passed away, but adapts to the existing world, and emphatically states, "Think of the sentiments that nature has inscribed in the heart of every citizen, which, when solemnly recognized, acquire new strength: a nation loves liberty so long as it knows it, a nation wants Emancipated as long as it demands to be emancipated".How dry, meager, and obscure are the sources upon which Mr. Burke bases his case!All his arguments and arguments, for all their gaudy rhetoric, were feeble compared with the clarity, brevity, and stirring of the heart!Although those words are short, they lead to a broad and generous field of thought, unlike Mr. Burke's articles, which sound pleasant to the ear but give nothing to the heart. Now that I have mentioned the Marquis de Lafayette, I would not venture to add an anecdote of his farewell address to the United States Congress in Things can't help but pop up in my mind again.The Marquis de Lafayette went to America early in the Revolutionary War and served it as a volunteer until the end of the war.His performance throughout the course of that venture was the most remarkable for a youth not yet twenty years old.Living in a country full of sensuality, and possessing the wealth of pleasure, how many people would be willing to exchange such good times and beautiful scenery for the jungles and wilderness of America, and spend their youthful youth in useless dangers and hardships!And it is.When the war was over and he was about to leave America, he went to Congress, reflected on the revolution he had witnessed, and expressed his feelings in these words in his affectionate farewell address: "May this great monument erected high for liberty become a lesson for the oppressor and a model for the oppressed!" When Dr. Franklin, who was in France at the time, received this farewell speech, he asked Count Vergennes to put it on the wall. In the "Gazette de France", but it was never agreed.The fact is that the Comte de Villegenne, an absolutist lord in his own country, is as afraid of an American revolution in France as some are now fearing a French revolution in England; and Mr. Burke's fear (he must be considered in this light) is exactly the same as the refusal of Count Vergennes.Now let's go back and study his writings. "We see," said Mr. Burke, "that the rebels of France, against a good and lawful prince, are far more appalling in their cruelty, fury, and outrage, than one against the most illegitimate usurper or the most murderous. tyrant." This is but one of innumerable other instances in which Mr. Burke's ignorance of the roots and principles of the French Revolution will be seen. ① Lafayette (1757-1834), French bourgeois revolutionary activist, aristocratic, political representative of the big bourgeoisie.In the early years, he participated in the North American War of Independence and made contributions. - translator The people of this country revolted not against Louis XVI, but against the despotic principles of the government.These principles were not invented by Louis XVI, but were established many centuries ago; And a general revolution is impossible.If something must be done, it should be done wholeheartedly; otherwise, it should not be done.The crisis had come and there was no choice but to act with audacity or not to act at all.At the time, the king was known for being considerate of his people, a situation that was good for the revolutionary cause.Never, perhaps, has a man, born in the mold of an absolute monarch, been at all inclined to exercise that power, as the King of France was at that time.But the principles of the government remain the same.The monarchy and the monarchy are distinct things; and the insurrection, at the outset, and throughout the course of the revolution, was against the despotism of the monarchy, not against the monarch himself and his principles. Mr. Burke ignores the distinction between man and principle, and therefore does not see that an uprising can be against the tyranny of the monarchy, but not against the tyranny of the individual prince. The mildness of Louis XVI did nothing to change the traditional absolutism of the monarchy.All the tyranny of the past dynasties under the traditional despotism will still be repeated in the hands of the successors.The suspension of absolutism by a dynasty did not satisfy France, although France was quite enlightened at the time.The suspension of despotism does not mean the suspension of its principles, the former lies in the virtue of the individual directly possessing this power, the latter in the virtue and perseverance of the nation.The rebellion against Charles I and James II in England was their personal tyranny; while in France it was the traditional tyranny of the old government. But Mr. Burke and his like, who hand over forever the rights of future generations with a rotten document, are not qualified to judge this revolution.The scope of the revolution was beyond their vision, and the force of reason on which it was advanced was beyond their reach. But there are many points of view that can be explored in this revolution.Despotism has a long history in a country like France, and it does not belong to the king alone.On the surface and in name it seems to belong to the king personally, but in practice and in fact it is not.Absolutism has its marks everywhere. Every institution and department has its despotism based on custom.Every place has its Bastille, and every Bastille has its tyrant.This traditional absolutism of the king himself was itself divided again and again into innumerable forms, until at last it was all exercised by deputies.Such is the case in France; there is nothing to correct this despotism, which works itself through endless institutions so that its origins are imperceptible.It strengthens itself by pretending to do its duty, and it imposes its tyranny on the pretext of speaking. When one considers the state of France in the light of its character, one sees that there are many other causes of rebellion than those directly connected with the person or disposition of Louis XVI.If I may say so, there were innumerable despotisms to be abolished in France at that time, which had grown up under the traditional absolutism of the monarchy and had taken root so deeply that in a large measure Despotism independent of the monarch.Between the monarchy, the parliament, and the church, absolutism competed; feudal absolutism was practiced locally, clerical absolutism everywhere.But Mr. Burke, from the point of view that the king is the only possible target of an insurrection, speaks of France as if it were a village, where everything that happens must be reported to the magistrate, and oppression cannot be practiced except under his direct control.M. Burke could have spent his life in the Bastille during the time of Louis XIV or under Louis XVI, but neither Louis XIV nor Louis XVI would have known that such a person as Mr. Burke existed.In these two dynasties, the despotic principles of the government were the same, although the two monarchs ①The stables of King Ogous, from Greek mythology, it is said that Ogous raised three thousand head of cattle in the stables, and they had not lived for thirty years. Cleaning, so it is used to describe extremely dirty people and things. - translator The nature of the Lord is as different as tyranny and love. What Mr. Burke finds to blame for the French Revolution (that is, that it broke out under a more benign prince than those of previous generations) is in fact its supreme glory.The revolutions that have taken place in other European countries have been inspired by private hatred.Wrath is personal, so the person becomes the victim.In the case of France, however, we see a revolution arising from a rational consideration of human rights, which at the outset separates the individual from the principle. But Mr. Burke, in his remarks on various governments, seems to have no idea of ​​principle."Ten years ago," he said, "I could have celebrated the existence of a government in France without asking what the nature of that government was or how it was governed."Is this the speech of a mind which is as concerned as it should be with the rights and happiness of man?Accordingly, Mr. Burke should praise all the governments of the world, and completely forget the tortured victims under their rule, who were sold into slavery, or tortured to death.Mr. Burke adores power, not principle; and under the sway of such evil feelings, he is not qualified to judge of power or principle.So much for his views on the French Revolution.Now I want to touch on some other issues. I know there's a place in America called Point-no-Point, because when you go along the coast like Mr. Burke's words, it always draws back and keeps you at a distance; but When you walk and walk and go to a place where you can't go further, it completely disappears.The same is true of Mr. Burke's 356-page masterpiece, so it is difficult to give him an answer.But since the point he wishes to establish may perhaps be deduced from his diatribes, we are left to look for his arguments in his contradictory statements. As for the grisly images--images through which Mr. Burke abuses his imagination and tries to push that of the reader--they are crafted for the stage, fabricated for the sake of the show, and exploited by the rich The weakness of sympathy makes it tearful. But Mr. Burke should remember that he is writing history and not "plays," and that his readers expect the truth of things, not rhetoric. When we see a man in a book uttering a dramatic wail in an attempt to convince people that "The age of chivalry is gone forever! The glory of Europe is gone forever! The gift of life not bought (God knows what that means) Gone are the days of cheap defense, manhood, and heroic deeds!" And all because the absurd days of Don Quixote's chivalry are gone for good, whose judgments we What opinion can there be, what attention can be paid to the facts he presents?In his wild imagination he found countless windmills, and he regretted that there were no Don Quixotes to attack them.But if the age of the aristocracy should collapse like the age of chivalry (they were somehow connected), Mr. Burke, the trumpeter of rank, could well have written his obscenities, at the end exclaiming: "Orsay Luo's career is over!" ①Despite Mr. Burke's horrific description of the situation, if we compare the French Revolution with revolutions in other countries, we will be surprised to find that the French Revolution is characterized by very few casualties, but when we consider that the objects deliberately destroyed at that time were This sense of surprise disappears when principles are used instead of people.The factors that stimulate the people to take action far exceed personal grievances, and the goals they want to pursue are by no means achieved by the collapse of an enemy.None of the few who perished seem to have been deliberately singled out.They all deserved it under the circumstances, and were not subjected to the kind of perpetual and brutal reprisals that the hapless Scots suffered in the events of 1745. Throughout Mr. Burke's book, there is only one mention of the Bastille, and he also implicitly expressed his interest in Othello as the protagonist in Shakespeare's tragedy. - translator Regrets the destruction of the Bastille and wishes to rebuild it.He said: "We have rebuilt Porte Nuevo and filled that building, and we have prisons as strong as the Bastille for those who dare to slander the Queen of France." ③As for what a madman named Sir George Gordon said, and that New Gate was not a prison but a madhouse in his eyes, this is not worth considering logically.This is a lunatic who is hurting others, and it is justifiable, and he can also take this opportunity to confine him, and this is what everyone hoped.But it is certain that Mr. Burke does not call himself a madman (whether he is called so or not), but he has no reason to vilify the whole of French representation with the most base and shameless invectives, and Mr. Burke But he stands high in the House of Commons!From his brutishness and melancholy, from his silence on some things and his outrage on others, it is hard not to believe that Mr. Burke destroyed arbitrary powers—the Pope's and the Bastille's, and was Extremely sorry. In all his books he does not find a shred of pity or sympathy for those who lead the most miserable and hopeless lives in the most grisly prisons.It is painful to see a man use his talents to ruin himself.Nature treated Mr. Burke better than Mr. Burke treated Nature.He is indifferent to the unfortunate reality that touches his heart, but is moved by the beautiful reality that captures his imagination.He takes pity on the feather, but forgets the dying bird.He was so used to kissing that noble hand which had stolen the real him from him, that he was reduced to a man-made work of art, lost in its simplicity.The hero or heroine of his books must be a tragic victim who dies in the show, not a truly unfortunate prisoner who dies quietly in the silence of a dungeon. Mr. Burke does not say a word about the whole affair in the Bastille (his silence does him no favors), but invents facts to deceive the reader.Since he didn't talk about it, let me talk about the situation before that incident happened.These circumstances suffice to show that, in view of the increasing treachery and hostility of the enemies of the revolution, the scourge of this event was by no means small. It is difficult to picture in the mind a more dire picture than the taking of the Bastille and the two days preceding and following the city of Paris, and it cannot be imagined that it would settle down so quickly.Viewed superficially, the event was nothing more than an isolated act of heroism, whose close political connection to the revolution was overshadowed by brilliant achievements.But we have to think it embodies the power of parties, they bring people together and fight for victory.For the attackers, the Bastille was either prize or prison.Its collapse means the collapse of absolutism, and this hybrid image is as symbolically linked as Bunyan's "Castle of Doubt" and "The Great Disappointment."At the time and before the taking of the Bastille, the National Assembly met at Versailles, twelve miles from Paris.About a week before the Parisian uprising and the capture of the Bastille, a conspiracy was discovered, headed by the King's youngest brother, the Count Dalto, to destroy the National Assembly, arrest its members, and thereby crush the constitution by surprise. Every hope and prospect of a free government.Thankfully for humanity and liberty, this plan did not materialize.Aren't there few examples of the terrible and cruel reprisals of all old governments, when they have succeeded in suppressing what they call an insurrection?This plan must pass through phases. ②New Gate is a famous prison in England. It was originally a city house at the west gate of London. - translator ③ After writing the above point, I found that Mr. Burke's pamphlet mentioned the Bastille twice, but they were all in the same tone.In one place he refers to it with an ambiguous question: "Those ministers who serve such a king with only face-worthy respect will sincerely obey Orders of the people?" Another reference to the occupation of the Bastille implies that the French guards who helped destroy the prison committed a crime."They have not forgotten," he said, "that the King's chateau in Paris has been taken." This is Mr. Burke, who writes his essay on constitutional liberties. --author ①John Bunyan (1628-1688), British writer, author of "The Pilgrim's Progress" and other fables. - translator Timely planning, because, to carry out this plan, it is necessary to muster a large army around Paris and cut off the communication between Paris and the National Assembly of Versailles.The troops for this task were chiefly foreign troops employed by France, brought for this purpose from the outlying provinces in which they were then stationed.When the number of people has gathered to 25,000 to 30,000, it is considered time to put the plan into practice.The Ministry then in office and friendly to the revolution was immediately dissolved, and a new Ministry was formed from those who had participated in the conspiracy, among them the Earl of Broy, who commanded these armies.The character of the man, as described to me by a letter I received (which I gave to Mr. Burke before he began to write his book, from sources which Mr. Burke considered reliable), "He's a pompous aristocrat, ruthless and capable of all sorts of bad things." The National Assembly was in a critical position at the time of the turmoil, and these members were doomed, and they knew it.The people of the whole country sympathize with them and stand by them, but they have no military power.The guards of the Earl of Broy surrounded the hall where the parliament was in session, and were about to arrest them at the first order, just as they had done to the Paris parliament a year ago.At that time, if the National Assembly left its post without permission, or showed weakness or fear, it would strengthen the admiration of the enemy and destroy the morale of the people.Putting together their situation, their cause, and the imminent crisis that would determine their personal and political fate, and the fate of their country and possibly Europe, there is nothing but an unrepentant prejudice Those who have become immoral by prostitution or prostitution are indifferent to their success. At that time the Archbishop of Vienna, who was President of the National Assembly, was too old to cope with events that might occur in a few days or hours.A more vigorous and courageous man was needed, and the National Assembly elected the Marquis de Lafayette (as vice-speaker, since the presidency was still held by the archbishop), an unprecedented feat.Just before the storm (July 11) Lafayette proposed a Declaration of the Rights of Man, which is the one mentioned on page 119.That declaration was hastily drafted, and was only part of a more substantial Declaration of Human Rights later agreed and adopted by the National Assembly.Lafayette later told me that it was brought up in particular at the time because, if the National Assembly were to collapse in threatening destruction, the principles of the National Assembly might still have a chance of preserving some traces. The crisis is looming, and the question at hand is to be free, not to be enslaved.An army of nearly 30,000 men on one side, and unarmed citizens on the other; the citizens of Paris, on whom the National Assembly had to rely, were as unarmed and untrained as the citizens of London at present.The French Guards had made a strong declaration of devotion to the national cause; but they were small in number, not a tenth of the troops under Brouille's command.Moreover, their officers are fawning on Bu Luoyi. The time is ripe for action and a new cabinet is in place.The reader should remember that the Bastille was taken on the 14th of July, and that the day I am referring to is the 12th of July.As soon as news of the cabinet reshuffle reached Paris, all entertainment venues and shops were closed that afternoon.内阁的改组被认为是采取敌对行为的先兆，这种见解是持之有理的。 外国军队开始向巴黎挺进。朗博斯亲王率领一队德国骑兵逼近路易十五广场，这个地区同几条大道相连。在进军中，他侮辱一个老人，并用剑刺了他。法国人是以尊老着称的；这种霸道行为碰上群众中普遍存在的激昂情绪，就产生一种强烈的效果，“武装起来！武装起来！”的呼声顷刻响彻全城。 人们没有武器，也很少有人会用武器；但是，当所有的希望都将破灭时，孤注一掷的决心一时是可以弥补武器的不足的。就在朗博斯亲王逼近的地区，堆放着许多筑造新桥用的石块，人们就用这些石块来投击骑兵。有一支①维埃纳，法国东南部一城市。 - translator 法国卫队听到了开火的消息，就冲出兵营参加了人民的队伍；当夜幕降临时，骑兵撤走了。 狭窄的巴黎街道对防守有利，从多层楼房的高处本可进行很大的骚扰，现在却保护他们防止敌人夜袭；人们彻夜为自己配备他们所能制造或搞到的各种武器：枪炮、刀剑、铁匠用的榔头、木匠用的斧头、铁橇、矛、戟、草耙、铁叉、木棍等等。次晨，他们收集到的多得令人难以置信的武器，还有他们所表现的那种更加令人难以置信的坚强意志，使敌人手足无措，大惊失色。这样的回敬是新内阁所没有料到的。他们习惯于奴隶制，想不到“自由” 能这样鼓舞人心，想不到一群徒手的公民竟敢面对一支三万人的军队。那一天，人们利用每一分钟时间收集武器，商讨对策，并使自己保持这样一个自发运动所能实现的最好的秩序。布罗衣继续包围这座城市，但当天没有再前进一步，第二天晚上也是在这种场合所许可的平静中度过的。 可是，市民的目的不仅在于防御。他们的事业处于危险关头，自由还是奴役在此一举。他们每时每刻都等待着进攻，或等待着听到向国民议会进攻；而在这种情况下，最果断的措施往往是最好的。现成的目标是巴士底狱；在这样一支军队面前攻下这样一座堡垒，这个巨大胜利必将使新内阁吓破胆，新内阁当时连开会都来不及。这天早晨，从截获的信件中获悉，过去似乎支持他们的巴黎市长德弗勒赛尔侯爵已出卖了他们；据此，毫无疑问，布罗衣次晚必将向巴士底狱增援。因此，必须在当天进攻巴士底狱；但在进攻以前，首先必须获得比目前更多更好的武器。 在城市附近，有一所残废军人院，藏着大量武器，市民要它投降；这个地方既无法防守，也无意防守，所以很快就投降了。市民获得武器供应后，就去进攻巴士底狱；这是各种年龄、各个阶层、携带各种武器的乌合之众。 对这一进军的情景，以及对在几小时或几分钟内可能发生的事件所引起的焦虑，非人的想象力所能描述。当时内阁在槁什么诡计，市民无从知道，正如市民在做什么内阁也不知道；布罗衣会采取何种行动来支援这个地方或解围，市民同样也不知道。一切都是那么神秘和冒险。 以一种唯有最生气勃勃的对自由的向往才能激发的英雄主义的热忱进攻巴士底狱，并且在短短几小时内就大功告成，这个事件是全世界所充分了解的。我不来详细描述进攻的情景，但要让大家知道引起这一事件的反人民的阴谋以及这种阴谋如何和巴士底狱同归于尽。新内阁企图用来囚禁国民议会的监狱，本是专制主义的大祭坛和堡垒，现在成了最先下手的确当目标。 此举使新内阁垮台，他们从为别人准备好的废墟上赶走了。布罗衣的军队溃散了，他自己也抱头鼠窜。 柏克先生大谈特谈阴谋，可是他一次也没有谈到反国民议会和国民自由的阴谋；他可以不谈，但他却把当时摆在他面前的所有情况都放过了。一些亡命之徒逃出了法国——柏克先生对这些人的事十分关心，并且从他们身上吸取了教训——他们所以脱逃是因为阴谋破产。没有人对他们搞阴谋；是他们对别人搞阴谋；那些断送性命的人受到他们准备加于别人的惩罚，这是罪有应得。可是柏克先生会不会说：如果这个精心策划的阴谋竟然得逞，得逞的一方很快就会抑制住他们的怒火？让一切旧政府的历史来回答这个问题吧。 国民议会把谁送上断头台了呢？一个也没有。他们自己倒是这个阴谋的注定受害者，可是他们并没有以牙还牙；既然他们没有报复，为什么要指控他们报复呢？在一次规模浩大的全民奋起中，各种阶层、气质和性格的人混杂一起，以奇迹般的努力把自己从企图使他们毁灭的境地中解救出来，能期望不出一点事儿吗？当人们饱受压迫的痛苦并受到新的压迫的威胁时，还期待什么处之泰然的哲学或遇事麻木不仁呢？柏克先生大声疾呼反对暴行；然而，最大的暴行却是他自己犯的。他的书就是一部暴行录，书中没有为一时冲动犯下的暴行表示歉意，而是在整整十个月内对这些暴行倍加珍爱：但柏克先生并没有受到过挑衅，他的生命和个人利益也未处于危险。 在这次斗争中，市民的伤亡比敌人多；但是有四、五个人被群众抓住并立即处死；其中有巴士底狱的总监和巴黎市长——此人在陷害他们时当场败露；后来还有新内阁阁员之一富隆和他的女婿贝尔梯埃，后者接受了巴黎总管的职务。他们的头颅被插在铁杆上周游于市；柏克先生描绘的悲惨图景大部分是以这种处罚方式为蓝本的。因此还是让我们来研究一下人民是怎样想到要采取这种处罚方式的。 他们是从统治他们的政府那里学来的，而把他们同空见惯的刑罚作为报复。这种插在铁杆上的人头，在伦敦的城门上一连挂好几年，同巴黎那些插在铁杆上的人头的恐怖情景毫无区别；但这是英国政府干的。也许可以说，一个人死后，随便拿他怎样处理，对他都毫无意义，但对于活着的人却意义重大。它要末使他们感情痛苦，要末使他们变成铁石心肠，但二者都教会他们一旦大权在握如何去进行惩罚。 这就需要从根本上解决，教育政府要有人道。因为是这些政府的血腥刑罚使人变坏了。在英国，在某些情况下使用绞死、溺死，和分尸等刑罚，并把受刑者的心肝挖出来示众。在法国，在前政府的统治下，刑罚之野蛮也毫无逊色。谁能忘记用五马分尸处死达米安的情景？向公众展示这种种残酷的情景其效果只能是毁灭善良的心灵或者激起报仇的意识；而且，由于用恐怖而不是用理性来统治人的卑劣错误观点，这些情景就造成了先例。政府企图用恐怖的手段来对付最下层阶级的人，从而在他们身上产生了最坏的影响。 他们清楚地感到启己是要针对的目标，因而他们也倒过来自己动手干这些教给他们的恐怖事儿。 在所有的欧洲国家中，都有一大批这样的人，英国称他们为“暴徒”。 年在伦敦放火劫掠的是这帮人，在巴黎把人头插在铁杆上的也是这帮人。富隆和贝尔梯埃是在乡间抓到的，然后送往巴黎市政府受审；国民议会在新内阁就职后立即通过了一项法案，呈交国王和内阁，声称他们（国民议会）认为新内阁——富隆是其中一员——应对其提出与推行的各项措施负责；可是一群暴徒为富隆和贝尔梯埃的出现所激怒，就在他们被押送市政府的途中把他们从押解者手中抢了过来，就地枪决。那么，柏克先生为什么要用这种暴行来指控全体人民呢？据此，他也可以用1780年的骚乱和暴行去指控全体伦敦市民或用爱尔兰的骚乱和暴行去指控他的全体同胞了。 但我们听到或看到令人不快或有损人类道德的一切事情，应当引起我们深入思考而不是斥责一通。即使犯了这些案情的人也需要我们加以考虑。以粗野无知的暴徒出名的人，在一切古老的国家中为数这样多，这究竟是什么道理呢？我们向自己提出这个问题，只要动一下脑筋是可以解答的。他们的出现是不可避免的，这是包括英国在内的欧洲所有旧政府结构不良所造成的恶果。把一些人吹捧上天，把另一些人打入地狱，以致一切都颠倒过来。广大人民被降格投入人类画面的后景，使国家和贵族扮演的木偶戏更加显眼突出。在一次革命开始之际，这些人只是追随某一阵营而并非追随自由的旗帜，还需要教育他们如何尊重自由。 我指出了柏克先生对于事实所作的戏剧性的夸大，我要问他这些事实是否证明我所说的话千真万确？要是承认这些事实确切无误，它们就表明了法国革命的必要性，此外他就什么也不要提了。这些暴行并非革命的原则所致，而是出于革命发生前就存在的坏思想，这种思想正是革命要加以改造的。还是恢复这些暴行的本来面目，把骂他们的话骂你自己吧。 这是国民议会与巴黎市的光荣：在这样一个非任何当局所能控制的武装混乱的可怕场面中，它们居然能够用示范和规劝的力量大大控制了局势。从未有过一次革命象法国革命那样煞费苦心地去教育和开导人们，使他们明白他们的利益在于德行而不在于报复。现在我要就柏克先生关于10月5日和日出征凡尔赛的记述谈谈我的看法。 我只能从演戏的角度来看待柏克先生的着作；我认为他本人也是这样来看的，他以诗人的自由略去了一些事实，歪曲了另一些事实，使整个布局产生一种舞台效果。他对出征凡尔赛的记述就是如此。他的记述的开头就略去了那些作为起因被证明确凿的事实，其他一切即使在巴黎也都是猜测：接着他就凭空捏造出一个适合他自己的感情与偏见的故事。 必须看到，在柏克先生的全书中，他从未提到那些反对革命的阴谋，而一切灾难正是由这些阴谋产生的。只披露结果而不提原因，正符合他的本意。 这也是演戏的一种技巧。如果把人们所犯的罪行连同他们所受的痛苦一起表现出来，舞台效果往往就会削弱，而有些地方本来要使观众哀痛的，现在倒反博得他们赞许了。 在对出征凡尔赛这一错综复杂事件进行了全面调查之后，它依然扑朔迷离，凡是由各种同时发生的尴尬局面而不是由原定计划产生的事件，都有这种特点。当人们的性格正在形成的时候——在革命中情况总是如此——总会相互猜疑，容易误解；甚至原则截然相反的政党也往往会协力推进同一运动，尽管这些政党的观点不大相同，希望运动产生的结果也大不相同。从这一棘手事件中可发现很多这类情形，但整个争端则无人知晓。 当时唯一确知之事，就是由于国王迟迟不批准和转发国民议会的几项法令，特别是包含宪法将据以建立的根本原则的《人权宣言》和8月4日法令，在巴黎激起了相当的不安情绪。对于这件事的最好心又最合乎情理的推测也许是，有几个大臣想在法令最后批准和发往各省以前对其中某些部分提出意见；但是，即使情形如此，革命的敌人还是从拖延中获得希望，革命的朋友则感到不安。 在这种悬而未决的情况下，卫队——它就跟这类部队一样，通常是由那些与宫廷关系密切的人组成的——在凡尔赛宫（10月1日）举行宴会，款待一些刚到的外国军队，当宴会正热闹时，卫队得到一个信号，就把三色帽徽扯下来踩在脚下，并换上一个特意预备好了的帽徽。这种侮辱行为无异是挑衅。这同宣战一样；而人们要是提出挑战，就必须承担后果。可是，柏克先生对这一切讳莫如深。他是这样开始他的叙述的：“历史将记下，1789年月6日早晨，法国国王和王后在经过了一天的混乱、惊慌、恐怖与屠杀之后，在公众效忠和保证安全的情况下，躺下来享受几小时忧虑不宁的睡眠。”这不是历史的严肃态度，也不是历史的意向。这会使人对一切发生猜疑和误解。 人们至少会想到当时发生过一场战斗；事实上，要不是由于柏克先生所指责的那些人的克制，倒很可能会有一场战斗。柏克先生把卫队撇开不谈，他就戏剧性地特许自己用国王和王后取代卫队，好象这次出征的目标就是反对国王和王后似的。但还是言归正传吧。 可以预料，卫队的这一行为惊动并激怒了巴黎人民。这个事件中的三色帽徽以及事件本身那么紧密地结合在一起，决不可能对侮辱国徽的目的误解，于是巴黎人决定责问卫队。在白天进军向一支存心挑衅的武装部队要求满意的答复，无疑是毫无暗杀的怯懦心理的，如果可以这样说的话。但尴尬的是：革命的敌人似乎同革命的朋友一样赞成此举。一方想及时防止一场内战，另一方则要挑起内战。那些反对革命的人希望把国王拉到他们一边，把他从凡尔赛弄到梅斯，企图在那里集结一支兵力，树立一面旗帜。因此，同时存在着两种不同的目的，而且要用同样的手段来达到；一种是巴黎人的目的，他们要惩罚卫队，而另一种则要利用这个局面，劝诱国王动身到梅斯去。 月5 日，为数众多的妇女和乔装成妇女的男人聚集在巴黎市政府四周，并向凡尔赛进发。他们公开扬言的目标是卫队。但是审慎的人都明白，坏事开始容易结束难，由于已经提到的猜疑心理又加上这样一支乱七八糟的队伍，这一点就更加突出了。因此，一等到集合了一支可观的兵力，拉法叶特侯爵就受巴黎民政当局之命，率领两万巴黎民兵尾随队伍出发。革命是不能从混乱中受益的，反革命却可能混水摸鱼。在此之前，拉法叶特侯爵曾用亲切生动的讲话多次把骚乱平息下来，这方面他是特别成功的；因此，为了挫败那些谋求将事态扩大到使国王从凡尔赛撤往梅斯成为理所当然的人的希望，同时阻止卫队与男男女女组成的队伍发生冲突，他火速报告国王，他受巴黎市政当局之命正向凡尔赛进发，以维护和平与安全，同时表示有必要制止卫队向人民开枪。 ①他在晚上十点至十一点之间到达凡尔赛。当时卫队已经集合，人民队伍也已在早些时候到达，双方相持不下。现在要靠机智与谋略来转危为安。拉法叶特侯爵于是成为愤激的双方的调解人；国王为了消除因前述迟迟不批准法令所引起的骚动，召来国民议会议长，并签署了《人权宣言》以及业已拟就的宪法其他部分。 当时大约凌晨一时，一切都好象已安定下来，大家纷纷祝贺。在击鼓声中，凡尔赛市民特腾出屋子来招待巴黎同胞。屋内安置不下的人就留在街上或在教室里住宿。国王和王后于二时就寝。 这种情况一直维持到天明，然后，由于双方中某些人都应受指责的行为，新的冲突发生了，因为在任何这样的场合都难免会有这种人。卫队中有一兵士偶然出现在王宫的窗口，在街上过夜的市民向他破口大驾。那个士兵本应知趣回避，可是他却端起枪来打死了一个巴黎民兵。于是，和平破裂了，人民冲进王宫去找肇事的士兵。他们攻击卫队在宫中的驻房，并到处紧紧追索，直至国王的寝室。在骚乱中，并非柏克先生所述只有王后一人，而是宫中所有的人都被惊醒了；拉法叶特侯爵再次在双方之间进行调解，结果卫队重新戴上三色帽徽。这样，在损失了两三条生命之后，事情就算结束了。 在这场混乱发生的后半段时间，国王和王后在阳台上同群众见面，他们并没有象柏克先生所暗示的那样为自身的安全而躲藏起来。事情就这样平息①可以断定这一点是事实，因为这是拉法叶特侯爵亲口告诉我的，我曾同侯爵友好相处达十四年之久。 --author 下来，恢复了安宁，群众齐声高呼：“国王回巴黎去！国王回巴黎去！”这是和平的呼声，立即为国王所接受。由于这种措施，一切要把国王诱往梅斯和竖起反宪法旗帜的阴谋部破产了，双方的猜疑也消失了。国王和他的家属在当晚抵达巴黎，巴黎市长巴伊代表巴黎市民为他们的到达表示庆贺。柏克先生在书中把各种事情、人物和原则都混淆起来，在评论巴伊的讲话时把时间也混淆了。他责怪巴伊先生把那一天叫做“一个好日子”。其实，柏克先生应该知道，这种局面一共经历了两天，一天是以危机四伏开始，一天是以不受祸害威胁告终；巴伊所提到的正是这种和平的结局以及国王抵达巴黎。 从凡尔赛到巴黎途中，差不多有三十万市民列队迎送，沿途并未发生任何骚扰。 柏克先生由国民议会的一名逃兵拉利，托朗达先生授意说，当进入巴黎时，市民高呼：“把所有的主教吊死在街灯上”。奇怪的是，听见这种呼声的只有拉利·托朗达一人，相信这种说法的也只有柏克先生一人。它同事件的经过没有一点关系，同任何情况都毫不相干。这些主教从未在柏克先生的戏剧中出现过，现在为什么一下子全都出场了呢？柏克先生把他的主教们和幻影般的人物吊在一盏幻灯里，并通过对比而不是通过连接来揭开幕帷。但这只能表明他的着作的其余部分也很少有可信之处，为了达到诽谤的目的，甚至对可信的事情也不屑一顾。我以这种看法，而不象柏克先生那样以赞美骑士制度的独自，来结束关于出征凡尔赛的叙述①。 现在我得听柏克先生那一套漫无边际的狂言乱语和关于各种政府的美妙论述，其中他信口开河，既不提供证据，也不说明理由，自以为人家会深信不疑。 在任何事情能够通过推考得出结论之前，必需先确立肯定或否定据以推考的某些事实、原则或资料。柏克先生以其一贯的粗暴态度谩骂法国国民议会将其作为法国宪法赖以建立的基础而予以公布的《人权宣言》。他称这个宣言为“关于人权的一纸既无价值又含糊其词的具文”。难道柏克先生意在否认人类具有任何权利么？如果是这样，他想必认为任何地方都不存在象权利这样的东西，而且他自己也不具有这种权利；因为世界上除了人还有什么呢？如果柏克先生承认人是有权利的，那么，问题是：这些权利是什么？人最初是怎样获得这些权利的呢？ 关于人的权利，有些人是从古代汲取先例来推理的，其错误在于他们深入古代还不够。他们没有追到底。他们在一百年或一千年的中间阶段就停了下来，把当时的做法作为现代的准则。这根本没有什么权。如果我们再进一步深入古代，就会发现当时还有着一种截然相反的见解和实践；如果古就是权威，那就可以找出无数这样的权威，它们是一贯彼此矛盾的；如果再往深里挖，我们将最后走上正路；我们将回到人从造物主手中诞生的时刻。他当时是什么？are people.人是他最高的和唯一的称号，没有再高的称号可以给他了。 但是关于称号的问题，我以后再谈吧。 我们已追溯到人类的起源及其权利的起源。至于世界从那时起直到今天被统治的方式，除了适当利用历史所提供的错误或进步经验之外，就都与我们无关了。生活在千百年前的人，就是当时的现代人，恰如我们是今天的现①关于出征凡尔赛的叙述可参见《巴黎的革命》第13卷，其中载有1789年10月3日至10日发生的事件。 --author 代人一样。他们有他们的古人，古人以上还有古人，而且将来也要轮到我们成为古人。如果仅仅以古代的名义来支配生活，那么，千百年后的人也将把我们作为先例，正如我们把千百年前的人作为先例一样。事实上，自古以来的人想证明一切，结果都一无建树。从来就是权威同权威之争，直至我们追溯到创业时人权的神圣起源。这里，我们的探索才有了着落，理性也找到了归宿。如果创世后一百年就发生人权之争，那它们指的必定是这个权威的根源，我们现在谈的也必须是同一个权威的根源。 虽然我这里无意涉及宗教的任何宗派原则，但是也许值得指出，基督的谱系可以迫溯到亚当。既是如此，为什么不能把人权追溯到创造人的时期去呢？我来答复这个问题。因为过去有许多突然冒出来的政府，硬是插手进来，肆无忌惮地拼命使人不成其为人。 如果哪一代人具有决定那种用以永远统治世界的方式的权利，那就只能是第一代人；如果第一代人没有这样做，以后任何一代人都不能证明有这样做的权或者建立起任何这样的权。人权平等的光辉神圣原则（因为它是从造物主那里得来的）不但同活着的人有关，而且同世代相继的人有关。根据每个人生下来在权利方面就和他同时代人平等的同样原则，每一代人同它前代的人在权利上都是平等的。 任何一部创世史，任何一种传统的记述，无论来自有文字记载的世界或无文字记载的世界，不管它们对于某些特定事物的见解或信仰如何不同，但在确认人类的一致住这一点上则是一致的；我的意思是说，所有的人都处于同一地位，因此，所有的人生来就是平等的，并具有平等的天赋权利，恰象后代始终是造物主创造出来而不是当代生殖出来，虽然生殖是人类代代相传的唯一方式；结果每个孩子的出生，都必须认为是从上帝那里获得生存。世界对他就象对第一个人一样新奇，他在世界上的天赋权利也是完全一样的。 不论把摩西的创世说视为神圣的权威抑或只是历史的权威，都充分说明了这一点：人的一致性或平等。这种说法是无可争辩的。“上帝说，让我们按照我们的形象造人，上帝就按照自己的形象造了人：按照自己的形象造了男人和女人。”性的差别是指出了，其他差别却只字未提。如果说这不是神圣的权威，至少也是历史的权威，它表明了人的平等——尽管这决不是现代的学说——在历史的记载上是最古老的。 还必须看到，世界上所有的宗教就其关系到人类而言，都是建立在人类的一致性之上的，即大家都处于同一地位。无论在天堂或地狱，或者生存在任何环境里，善和恶是唯一的差别。甚至政府的法律也不得不袭用这个原则，只规定罪行的轻重，而不规定人的地位。 这是一切真理中最伟大的真理，而发扬这个真理是具有最高的利益的。 从这个角度来看待人，并从这个角度来教育人，就可以使他同他的一切义务紧紧联系起来，无论是对造物主的义务，还是对天地万物（他就是其中一部分）的义务。只有当他忘记了自己的来历，或者用一句更时髦的话，忘记了他的出身和门第时，他才会变得放荡不羁。在欧洲现存各国政府的罪过中，有一种并非最微不足道的罪过，就是人作为人已被远远同他的造物主隔开，人为的裂口用一连串人不得不从其中通过的壁垒和关卡填满。我来引用一下柏克先生在人与造物主之间所建立的种种壁垒。他把自己打扮成一个先驱者的角色，他说：“我们畏惧上帝同时也对国王敬畏，对议会爱护，对长官服从，对教士虔诚，对贵族尊敬”。柏克先生忘了把“骑士风格”写进去。他也忘了把彼得写进去。 人类的义务并不是无数的收税关卡，他必须凭票通过这个关卡到那个关卡。人的义务简单明了，只包括两点。他对上帝的义务，这是每个人都应感受的；对邻居彼此以礼相待。如果那些受权的人做得好，他们就会受到尊重，否则就将遭到轻视，但对那些未经授权而是窃取权力的人来说，理性的世界就不能承认他们了。 以上我们只谈到人的天赋权利，而且只谈到一部分。现在，我们应当谈谈人的公民权利，并说明一种权利如何从另一种权利产生。人进入社会并不是要使良已的处境比以前更坏，也不是要使自己具有的权利比以前更少，而是要让那些权利得到更好的保障。他的天赋权利是他的一切公民权利的基础。为了更精确地加以区别，注意一下天赋权利与公民权利的不同性质是很有必要的。 这只要几句话就可以说清楚。天赋权利就是人在生存方面所具有的权利。其中包括所有智能上的权利，或是思想上的权利，还包括所有那些不妨害别人的天赋权利而为个人自己谋求安乐的权利。公民权利就是人作为社会一分子所具有的权利。每一种公民权利都以个人原有的天赋权利为基础，但要享受这种权利光靠个人的能力无论如何是不够的。所有这一类权利都是与安全和保护有关的权利。 从这短短几句交待中，就可以很容易分辩出入进入社会后还保留的那类天赋权利与人作为社会一分子而投入公股的那些天赋权利之间的差别。 人所保留的天赋权利就是所有那些权利，个人既充分具有这种权利，又有充分行使这种权利的能力。如上所述，这类权利包括一切智能上的权利，或者思想上的权利；信教的权利也是其中之一。至于人所不能保留的天赋权利就是所有那些权利，尽管个人充分具有这种权利，但却缺乏行使它们的能力。这些权利满足不了他的要求。一个人借助于天赋权利，就有权判断他自己的事务；就思想上的权利而言，他决不会放弃这个权利。但是如若他不具备矫正的能力，那么光判断自己的事务又有什么用呢？所以他把这种权利存入社会的公股中，并且作为社会的一分子，和社会携手合作，并使社会的权利处于优先地位，在他的权利之上。社会并未自送给他什么。每个人都是社会的一个股东，从而有权支取股本。 从这些前提出发，可以得出两、三点结论： 每种公民权利都来自一种天赋权利，换句话说，是由一种天赋权利换取的。 恰当地称为公民权力的那种权力是由人的各种天赋权利集合而成的，这种夭赋权利就能力观点而言，在个人身上是不充分的，满足不了他的要求，但若汇集到一点，就可以满足每个人的要求。 由种种天赋权利集合而成的权力（从个人的权力来说是不充分的）不能用以侵犯由个人保留的那些天赋权利，个人既充分具有这些天赋权利，又有充分行使这种权利的权力。 我们了了数语已探索了人从自然的个人到社会的历程，并且表明或者力求表明，人所保留的天赋权利的性质以及那些用以换取公民权利的天赋权利的性质。现在，就让我们把这些原则运用于各种政府罢。 放眼世界，可以极其容易地把那些由社会或由社会契约产生的政府用那些不是由此产生的政府区别开来；但为了更清楚地了解这一点，不妨把各种政府由之产生并据以建立的几种根源考察一下。 这些根源可以归结为三大类。第一，迷信。第二，权力。第三，社会的共同利益和人类的共同权利。 第一种是受僧侣控制的政府。第二种是征服者的政府。第三种是理性的政府。 一伙狡猾的人，借助神渝装作同神来往，亲热得就象他们现在走上欧洲宫廷的后楼梯一样，这时世界就完全处于迷信的统治之下。他们乞灵于神谕，把硬要神说的那一套变为法律；这种迷信存在多久，这种政府也就能存在多久。 后来有一批征服者出现，这些人的政府同征服者威廉的政府一样，建立在暴力之上，将利剑冒称王笏。这样建立起来的政府，支持它们的力量存在多久，它们也存在多久；但为了利用每一种有利于自己的手段，它们把欺骗和暴力相结合，建立了一个他们称之为神权的偶像，后来又模仿喜欢兼精神和世俗而有之的教皇，和基督教的创立者背道而驰，把这种偶像歪曲为另一种模样，叫做教会与国家。圣·彼得的钥匙和国库的钥匙被混在一起，而疑惑的受骗大众却对这种发明顶礼膜拜。 当我想到人的天赋尊严，感到（由于造化对我不够仁慈，没有使我的感觉迟钝）其本性的光荣和幸福时，我就为那些用暴力和欺骗来