An historical and moral view of the origin and progress of the French Revolution; and the effect it has produced in EuropeWollstonecraft, Mary
Philosophy
An historical and moral view of the origin and progress of the French Revolution; and the effect it has produced in Europe
Wollstonecraft, Mary
France -- History -- Revolution, 1789-1799 -- Causes
The decree which made the king inviolable, passed on the 15th of
September, at the time the crown was declared hereditary, and the empire
indivisible, was the most idle, if not the most dangerous measure, both
for him and France, which could have been devised. The former life of
Louis had exhibited a series of follies, and displayed an insincerity
not to be tolerated, much less encouraged; and it was likely, if this
doctrine, a relict of the abasement of ignorance, that kings can do no
wrong, should be carried into a law, forming part of the constitution,
that he would avail himself of the decree of the assembly to cover his
contempt of the national sovereignty. When kings are considered by the
government of a country merely as ciphers, it is very just and proper,
that their ministers should be responsible for their political conduct:
but at the moment when a state is about to establish a constitution on
the basis of reason, to undermine that foundation by a master-piece of
absurdity, appears a solecism as glaring as the doctrine itself is
laughable, when applied to an enlightened policy. In fact, whilst
Mirabeau contended for the infallibility of the king, he seems to have
had no right from reason to deride those who respected that of the
church: for, if the government must necessarily be supported by a pious
fraud, one was as respectable as the other.
The bigotry of Louis was well known; nay, it was notorious, that he
employed his confessor to erase from his tender conscience the
remembrance of the vices he resolved to indulge, and to reconcile the
meanest dissimulation with a servile fear of the Being whose first
attribute is truth.—This man, whose bestiality had been carefully
pampered by the queen and count d’Artois, because in those moments of
revelry, prolonged to the most disgusting excess of gluttony and
intoxication, he would sanction all their demands, was made in his
person and conduct sacred and unimpeachable. This was the extreme folly
of weakness. But, when it is also kept in view, that, at the very period
when he was declared inviolable, he was suspected, in concert with the
court, to be actually meditating his flight, there seems to be a
pusillanimity in it as contemptible as the pretended dignity of the
assembly was ridiculous.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account