At the moment when the drama which we are narrating is on the point of penetrating into the depths of one of the tragic clouds which envelop the beginning of Louis Philippe's reign, it was necessary that there should be no equivoque, and it became requisite that this book should offer some explanation with regard to this king.
Louis Philippe had entered into possession of his royal authority without violence, without any direct action on his part, by virtue of a revolutionary change, evidently quite distinct from the real aim of the Revolution, but in which he, the Duc d'Orleans, exercised no personal initiative. He had been born a Prince, and he believed himself to have been elected King. He had not served this mandate on himself; he had not taken it; it had been offered to him, and he had accepted it; convinced, wrongly, to be sure, but convinced nevertheless, that the offer was in accordance with right and that the acceptance of it was in accordance with duty. Hence his possession was in good faith. Now, we say it in good conscience, Louis Philippe being in possession in perfect good faith, and the democracy being in good faith in its attack, the amount of terror discharged by the social conflicts weighs neither on the King nor on the democracy. A clash of principles resembles a clash of elements. The ocean defends the water, the hurricane defends the air, the King defends Royalty, the democracy defends the people; the relative, which is the monarchy, resists the absolute, which is the republic; society bleeds in this conflict, but that which constitutes its suffering to-day will constitute its safety later on; and, in any case, those who combat are not to be blamed; one of the two parties is evidently mistaken; the right is not, like the Colossus of Rhodes, on two shores at once, with one foot on the republic, and one in Royalty; it is indivisible, and all on one side; but those who are in error are so sincerely; a blind man is no more a criminal than a Vendean is a ruffian. Let us, then, impute to the fatality of things alone these formidable collisions. Whatever the nature of these tempests may be, human irresponsibility is mingled with them.
Let us complete this exposition.
The government of 1840 led a hard life immediately. Born yesterday, it was obliged to fight to-day.
Hardly installed, it was already everywhere conscious of vague movements of traction on the apparatus of July so recently laid, and so lacking in solidity.
Resistance was born on the morrow; perhaps even, it was born on the preceding evening. From month to month the hostility increased, and from being concealed it became patent.
The Revolution of July, which gained but little acceptance outside of France by kings, had been diversely interpreted in France, as we have said.
God delivers over to men his visible will in events, an obscure text written in a mysterious tongue. Men immediately make translations of it; translations hasty, incorrect, full of errors, of gaps, and of nonsense. Very few minds comprehend the divine language. The most sagacious, the calmest, the most profound, decipher slowly, and when they arrive with their text, the task has long been completed; there are already twenty translations on the public place. From each remaining springs a party, and from each misinterpretation a faction; and each party thinks that it alone has the true text, and each faction thinks that it possesses the light.
Power itself is often a faction.
There are, in revolutions, swimmers who go against the current; they are the old parties.
For the old parties who clung to heredity by the grace of God, think that revolutions, having sprung from the right to revolt, one has the right to revolt against them. Error. For in these revolutions, the one who revolts is not the people; it is the king. Revolution is precisely the contrary of revolt. Every revolution, being a normal outcome, contains within itself its legitimacy, which false revolutionists sometimes dishonor, but which remains even when soiled, which survives even when stained with blood.
Revolutions spring not from an accident, but from necessity. A revolution is a return from the fictitious to the real. It is because it must be that it is.
None the less did the old legitimist parties assail the Revolution of 1830 with all the vehemence which arises from false reasoning. Errors make excellent projectiles. They strike it cleverly in its vulnerable spot, in default of a cuirass, in its lack of logic; they attacked this revolution in its royalty. They shouted to it: "Revolution, why this king?" Factions are blind men who aim correctly.
This cry was uttered equally by the republicans. But coming from them, this cry was logical. What was blindness in the legitimists was clearness of vision in the democrats. 1830 had bankrupted the people. The enraged democracy reproached it with this.
Between the attack of the past and the attack of the future, the establishment of July struggled. It represented the minute at loggerheads on the one hand with the monarchical centuries, on the other hand with eternal right.
In addition, and beside all this, as it was no longer revolution and had become a monarchy, 1830 was obliged to take precedence of all Europe. To keep the peace, was an increase of complication. A harmony established contrary to sense is often more onerous than a war. From this secret conflict, always muzzled, but always growling, was born armed peace, that ruinous expedient of civilization which in the harness of the European cabinets is suspicious in itself. The Royalty of July reared up, in spite of the fact that it caught it in the harness of European cabinets. Metternich would gladly have put it in kicking-straps. Pushed on in France by progress, it pushed on the monarchies, those loiterers in Europe. After having been towed, it undertook to tow.
Meanwhile, within her, pauperism, the proletariat, salary, education, penal servitude, prostitution, the fate of the woman, wealth, misery, production, consumption, division, exchange, coin, credit, the rights of capital, the rights of labor, --all these questions were multiplied above society, a terrible slope.
Outside of political parties properly so called, another movement became manifest. Philosophical fermentation replied to democratic fermentation. The elect felt troubled as well as the masses; in another manner, but quite as much.
Thinkers meditated, while the soil, that is to say, the people, traversed by revolutionary currents, trembled under them with indescribably vague epileptic shocks. These dreamers, some isolated, others united in families and almost in communion, turned over
social questions in a pacific but profound manner; impassive miners, who tranquilly pushed their galleries into the depths of a volcano, hardly disturbed by the dull commotion and the furnaces of which they caught glimpses.
This tranquillity was not the least beautiful spectacle of this agitated epoch.
These men left to political parties the question of rights, they occupied themselves with the question of happiness.
The well-being of man, that was what they wanted to extract from society.
They raised material questions, questions of agriculture, of industry, of commerce, almost to the dignity of a religion. In civilization, such as it has formed itself, a little by the command of God, a great deal by the agency of man, interests combine, unite, and amalgamate in a manner to form a veritable hard rock, in accordance with a dynamic law, patiently studied by economists, those geologists of politics.These men who grouped themselves under different appellations, but who may all be designated by the generic title of socialists, endeavored to pierce that rock and to cause it to spout forth the living waters of human felicity.
From the question of the scaffold to the question of war, their works embraced everything. To the rights of man, as proclaimed by the French Revolution, they added the rights of woman and the rights of the child.
The reader will not be surprised if, for various reasons, we do not here treat in a thorough manner, from the theoretical point of view, the questions raised by socialism. We confine ourselves to indicating them.
All the problems that the socialists proposed to themselves, cosmogonic visions, revery and mysticism being cast aside, can be reduced to two principal problems.
First problem: To produce wealth.
Second problem: To share it.
The first problem contains the question of work.
The second contains the question of salary.
In the first problem the employment of forces is in question.
In the second, the distribution of enjoyment.
From the proper employment of forces results public power.
From a good distribution of enjoyments results individual happiness.
By a good distribution, not an equal but an equitable distribution must be understood.
From these two things combined, the public power without, individual happiness within, results social prosperity.
Social prosperity means the man happy, the citizen free, the nation great.
England solves the first of these two problems. She creates wealth admirably, she divides it badly. This solution which is complete on one side only leads her fatally to two extremes: monstrous opulence, monstrous wretchedness. All enjoyments for some, all privations for the rest, that is to say, for the people; privilege, exception, monopoly, feudalism, born from toil itself. A false and dangerous situation, which sates public power or private misery, which sets the roots of the State in the sufferings of the individual. A badly constituted grandeur in which are combined all the material elements and into which no moral element enters.
Communism and agrarian law think that they solve the second problem. They are mistaken. Their division kills production. Equal partition abolishes emulation; and consequently labor. It is a partition made by the butcher, which kills that which it divides. It is therefore impossible to pause over these pretended solutions. Slaying wealth is not the same thing as dividing it.
The two problems require to be solved together, to be well solved. The two problems must be combined and made but one.
Solve only the first of the two problems; you will be Venice, you will be England. You will have, like Venice, an artificial power, or, like England, a material power; you will be the wicked rich man. You will die by an act of violence, as Venice died, or by bankruptcy, as England will fall. And the world will allow to die and fall all that is merely selfishness, all that does not represent for the human race either a virtue or an idea.
It is well understood here, that by the words Venice, England, we designate not the peoples, but social structures; the oligarchies superposed on nations, and not the nations themselves. The nations always have our respect and our sympathy. Venice, as a people, will live again; England, the aristocracy, will fall, but England, the nation, is immortal. That said, we continue.
Solve the two problems, encourage the wealthy, and protect the poor, suppress misery, put an end to the unjust farming out of the feeble by the strong, put a bridle on the iniquitous jealousy of the man who is making his way against the man who has reached the goal, adjust, mathematically and fraternally, salary to labor, mingle gratuitous and compulsory education with the growth of childhood, and make of science the base of manliness, develop minds while keeping arms busy, be at one and the same time a powerful people and a family of happy men, render property democratic, not by abolishing it, but by making it universal, so that every citizen, without exception, may be a proprietor, an easier matter than is generally supposed; in two words, learn how to produce wealth and how to distribute it, and you will have at once moral and material greatness; and you will be worthy to call yourself France.
This is what socialism said outside and above a few sects which have gone astray; that is what it sought in facts, that is what it sketched out in minds.
Efforts worthy of admiration! Sacred attempts!
These doctrines, these theories, these resistances, the unforeseen necessity for the statesman to take philosophers into account, confused evidences of which we catch a glimpse, a new system of politics to be created, which shall be in accord with the old world without too much disaccord with the new revolutionary ideal, a situation in which it became necessary to use Lafayette to defend Polignac, the intuition of progress transparent beneath the revolt, the chambers and streets, the competitions to be brought into equilibrium around him, his faith in the Revolution, perhaps an eventual indefinable resignation born of the vague acceptance of a superior definitive right, his desire to remain of his race, his domestic spirit, his sincere respect for the people, his own honesty, preoccupied Louis Philippe almost painfully, and there were moments when strong and courageous as he was, he was overwhelmed by the difficulties of being a king.
He felt under his feet a formidable disaggregation, which was not, nevertheless, a reduction to dust, France being more France than ever.
Piles of shadows covered the horizon. A strange shade, gradually drawing nearer, extended little by little over men, over things, over ideas; a shade which came from wraths and systems. Everything which had been hastily stifled was moving and fermenting. At times the conscience of the honest man resumed its breathing, so great was the discomfort of that air in which sophisms were intermingled with truths. Spirits trembled in the social anxiety like leaves at the approach of a storm. The electric tension was such that at certain instants, the first comer, a stranger, brought light. Then the twilight obscurity closed in again. At intervals, deep and dull mutterings allowed a judgment to be formed as to the quantity of thunder contained by the cloud.
Twenty months had barely elapsed since the Revolution of July, the year 1832 had opened with an aspect of something impending and threatening.
The distress of the people, the laborers without bread, the last Prince de Conde engulfed in the shadows, Brussels expelling the Nassaus as Paris did the Bourbons, Belgium offering herself to a French Prince and giving herself to an English Prince, the Russian hatred of Nicolas, behind us the demons of the South, Ferdinand in Spain, Miguel in Portugal, the earth quaking in Italy, Metternich extending his hand over Bologna, France treating Austria sharply at Ancona, at the North no one knew what sinister sound of the hammer nailing up Poland in her coffin, irritated glances watching France narrowly all over Europe, England, a suspected ally, ready to give a push to that which was tottering and to hurl herself on that which should fall, the peerage sheltering itself behind Beccaria to refuse four heads to the law, the fleurs -de -lys erased from the King's carriage, the cross torn from Notre Dame, Lafayette lessened, Laffitte ruined, Benjamin Constant dead in indigence, Casimir Perier dead in the exhaustion of his power; political and social malady breaking out simultaneously in the two capitals of the kingdom, the one in the city of thought, the other in the city of toil; at Paris civil war, at Lyons servile war; in the two cities, the same glare of the furnace; a crater-like crimson on the brow of the people; the South rendered fanatic, the West troubled, the Duchesse de Berry in la Vendee, plots, conspiracies, risings, cholera, added the sombre roar of tumult of events to the sombre roar of ideas.
在路易－菲力浦当国的初期，天空已多次被惨淡的乌云所笼罩，我们叙述的故事即将进入当时的一阵乌云的深处，本书对这位国王，必须有所阐述，不能模棱两可。
路易－菲力浦掌握王权，并非通过他本人的直接行动，也没使用暴力，而是由于革命性质的一种转变，这和那次革命的真正目的显然相去甚远，但是，作为奥尔良公爵的他，在其中绝无主动的努力。他生来就是亲王，并自信是被选为国王的。他绝没有为自己加上这一称号，他一点没有争取，别人把这称号送来给他，他加以接受罢了；他深信，当然错了，但他深信授予是基于人权，接受是基于义务。因此，他的享国是善意的。我们也真心诚意地说，路易－菲力浦享国是出于善意，民主主义的进攻也是出于善意，种种社会斗争所引起的那一点恐怖，既不能归咎于国王，也不能归咎于民主主义。主义之间的冲突有如物质间的冲突。海洋护卫水，狂风护卫空气，国王护卫王权，民主主义护卫人民；相对抗拒绝对，就是说，君主制抗拒共和制；社会常在这种冲突中流血，但是它今天所受的痛苦将在日后成为它的幸福；并且，不管怎样，那些进行斗争的人在此地是丝毫没有什么可责备的；两派中的一派显然是错了，人权并不象罗得岛的巨像①那样，同时脚跨两岸，一只脚踏在共和方面，一只脚踏在君权方面；它是分不开的，只能站在一边；但是错了的人是错得光明的，盲人并不是罪人，正如旺代人不是土匪。我们只能把这些猛烈的冲突归咎于事物的必然性。不问这些风暴的性质如何，其中人负不了责任。
①公元前二八○年在希腊罗得岛上建成的一座太阳神青铜塑像，高三十二米，耸立在该岛港口，胯下能容巨舶通过。公元前二二四年在一次大地震中被毁。
让我们来完成这一叙述。
一八三○年的政府立即面对困难的生活。它昨天刚生下来，今日便得战斗。
七月的国家机器还刚刚搭起，装配得还很不牢固，便已感到处处暗藏着拖后腿的力量。
阻力在第二天便出现了，也许在前一天便已存在。
对抗势力一月一月壮大起来，并且暗斗变成了明争。
七月革命，我们已经说过，在法国国外并没受到君王们的欢迎，在国内又遇到了各种不同的解释。
上帝把它明显的意图通过种种事件揭示给人们，那原是一种晦涩难解的天书。人们拿来立即加以解释，解释得草率不正确，充满了错误、漏洞和反义。很少人能理解神的语言。最聪明、最冷静、最深刻的人慢慢加以分析，可是，当他们把译文拿出来时，事情早已定局了，公共的广场上早已有了二十种译本。每一种译本产生一个党，每一个反义产生一个派，并且每一个党都自以为掌握了唯一正确的译文，每一个派也自以为光明在自己的一边。
当权者本身往往自成一派。
革命中常有逆流游泳的人，这些人都属于旧党派。
旧党派自以为秉承上帝的恩宠，拥有继承权，他们认为革命是由反抗的权利产生出来的，他们便也有反抗革命的权利。错了。因为，在革命中反抗的不是人民，而是国王。革命恰恰是反抗的反面。任何革命都是一种正常的事业，它本身具有它的合法性，有时会被假革命者所玷污，但是，尽管被玷污，它仍然要坚持下去，尽管满身血迹，也一样要生存下去。革命不是由偶然事件产生的，而是由需要产生的。革命是去伪存真。它是因为不得不发生而发生的。
旧正统主义派也凭着谬误的理解所产生的全部戾气对一八三○年革命大肆攻击。谬见常是极好的炮弹。它能巧妙地打中那次革命的要害，打中它的铁甲的弱点，打中它缺少逻辑的地方，正统主义派抓住了王权问题来攻击那次革命。他们吼道：“革命，为什么要这国王？”瞎子也真能瞄准。这种吼声，也是共和派常常发出的。但是，出自他们，这吼声便合逻辑。这话出自正统主义派的口是瞎说，出自民主主义派的口却是灼见。一八三○曾使人民破产。愤激的民主主义要向它问罪。
七月政权在来自过去和来自未来的两面夹击中挣扎。它代表若干世纪的君主政体和永恒的人权之间的那一刹那。
此外，在对外方面，一八三○既已不是革命，并且变成了君主制，它便非跟着欧洲走不可。要保住和平，问题便更加复杂。违反潮流，倒转去寻求和洽，往往比进行战争更为棘手。从这种经常忍气而不尽吞声的暗斗中产生了武装和平棗一种连文明自身也信不过的殃民办法。七月王朝无可奈何地象一匹烈马在欧洲各国内阁所驾御的辕轭间腾起前蹄打蹦儿。梅特涅一心要勒紧缰绳。七月王朝在法国受着进步力量的推动，又在欧洲推动那些君主国，那伙行走缓慢的动物。它被拖，也拖人。
同时，在国内，社会上存在着一大堆问题：贫穷、无产阶级、工资、教育、刑罚、卖淫、妇女的命运、财富、饥寒、生产、消费、分配、交换、币制、信贷、资本的权利、劳工的权利等，情势岌岌可危。
在真正的政党以外，还出现另一种动态。和民主主义的酝酿相呼应的还有哲学方面的酝酿。优秀人物和一般群众都感到困惑，情况各不同，但同在困惑中。
有些思想家在思考，然而土壤，就是说，人民大众，受到了革命潮流的冲击，却在他们下面，被一种无以名之的癫痫震荡着。这些思想家，有的单干，有的汇合成派，并且几乎结为团体，把各种社会问题冷静而深入地揭示出来；这些坚忍的无动于衷的地下工人把他们的坑道静静地挖向火山的深处，几乎不为潜在的震动和隐约可辨的烈焰所动摇。
那种平静并非是那动荡时代最不美的景象。
那些人把各种权利问题留给政党，他们一心致力于幸福问题。
人的福利，这才是他们要从社会中提炼出来的东西。
他们把物质问题，农业、工业、商业等问题提到了几乎和宗教同样高贵的地位。文明的构成，成于上帝的少，成于人类的多，在其中，各种利益都以某一种动力的规律彼此结合、汇集、搀和，从而构成一种真正坚硬的岩石，这已由那些经济学家棗政治上的地质学家棗耐心研究过的。
他们试图凿穿这岩石，使人类无上幸福的源泉从那里源源喷出，这些人，各自聚集在不同的名称下面，但一律可用社会主义者这个属名来称呼他们。
他们的工程包括一切，从断头台问题直到战争问题都被包括在内。在法兰西革命所宣告的人权之外，他们还加上了妇女的权利和儿童的权利。
这点是不足为奇的，由于种种原因，我们不能在这里就社会主义所提出的各种问题一一从理论上作出详尽的论述，我们只打算略提一下。
社会主义者所要解决的全部问题，如果把那些有关宇宙形成学说的幻象、梦想和神秘主义都撇开不谈，可以概括为两个主要问题：
第一个问题：
生产财富。
第二个问题：
分配财富。
第一个问题包括劳动问题。
第二个包括工资问题。
第一个问题涉及劳力的使用。
第二个涉及享受的配给。
从劳力的合理使用产生大众的权力。
从享受的合理配给产生个人的幸福。
所谓合理的配给，并非平均的配给，而是公平的配给。最首要的平等是公正。
把外面的大众权力和里面的个人幸福这两个东西合在一起，便产生了社会的繁荣。
社会的繁荣是指幸福的人、自由的公民、强大的国家。
英国解决了这两个问题中的第一个。它出色地创造了财富！但分配失当。这种只完成一个方面的解决办法必然把它引向这样两个极端：丑恶不堪的豪华和丑恶不堪的穷苦。全部享受归于几个人，全部贫乏归于其余的人，就是说，归于人民；特权、例外、垄断、封建制都从劳动中产生。把大众的权力建立在私人的穷苦上面，国家的强盛扎根于个人的痛苦中，这是一种虚假的、危险的形势。这是一种组织得不好的强盛，这里面只有全部物质因素，毫无精神因素。
共产主义和土地法以为能解决第二个问题。他们搞错了。他们的分配扼杀生产。平均的授予取消竞争。从而也取消劳动。这是那种先宰后分的屠夫式的分配方法。因此，不可能停留在这种自以为是的办法上。扼杀财富并不是分配财富。
这两个问题必须一同解决，才能解决得当。两个问题必须并为一个来加以解决。
只解决这两个问题中的第一个吧，你将成为威尼斯，你将成为英格兰。你将和威尼斯一样只有一种虚假的强盛，或是象英格兰那样，只有一种物质上的强盛，你将成为一个恶霸。你将在暴力前灭亡，象威尼斯的末日那样，或是在破产中灭亡，象英格兰的将来那样。并且世界将让你死亡，让你倒下，因为凡是专门利己，凡是不能为人类代表一种美德或一种思想的事物，世界总是让它们倒下去，死去的。
当然，我们在这里提到了威尼斯和英格兰，我们所指的不是那些民族，而是那些社会结构，指高踞在那些民族上面的寡头政治，不是那些民族本身。对于那些民族，我们始终是尊敬、同情的。威尼斯的民族必将再生，英格兰的贵族必将倾覆，英格兰的民族却是不朽的。这话说了以后，我们继续谈下去。解决那两个问题，鼓励富人，保护穷人，消灭贫困，制止强者对弱者所施的不合理的剥削，煞住走在路上的人对已达目的的人所怀的不公道的嫉妒，精确地并兄弟般地调整对劳动的报酬，结合儿童的成长施行免费的义务教育，并使科学成为成年人的生活基础，在利用体力的同时发展人们的智力，让我们成为一个强国的人民，同时也成为一个幸福家庭的成员，实行财产民主化，不是废除财产，而是普及财产，使每个公民，毫无例外，都成为有产者，这并不象人们所想象的那么困难，总而言之，要知道生产财富和分配财富，这样，你便能既有物质上的强大，也有精神上的强大，这样，你才有资格自称为法兰西。
这便是不同于某些迷失了方向的宗派并高出于它们之上的社会主义所说的，这便是它在实际事物中所探索的，这便是它在理想中所设计的。
可贵的毅力！神圣的意图！
这些学说，这些理论，这些阻力，国务活动家必须和哲学家们一同正视的那种出人意料的需要，一些零乱而隐约可见的论据，一种有待于创始、既能调和旧社会而又不过分违反革命理想的新政策，一种不得不利用拉斐德来保护波林尼雅克①的形势，对从暴动中明显反映出来的进步力量的预感，议会和街道，发生在他左右的那些有待平衡的竞争，他对革命的信念，也许是模糊地接受了一种从正式而崇高的权利里产生的临时退让心情，他重视自己血统的意志，他的家庭观念，他对人民的真诚尊重，他自己的忠厚，这一切，常使路易－菲力浦心神不定，几乎感到痛苦，并且，有时，尽管他是那么坚强、勇敢，也使他在当国王的困难前感到灰心丧气。
他觉得在他脚下有种可怕的分裂活动，但又不是土崩瓦解，因为法兰西比以往任何时候都更加法兰西了。
阴霾遮住天边。一团奇特的黑影越移越近，在人、物、思想的上空慢慢散开，是种种仇恨和种种派系的黑影。被突然堵住了的一切又在移动酝酿了。有时，这忠厚人的良心不能不在那种夹杂诡辩和真理的令人极不舒畅的空气里倒抽一口气。人们的心情如同风暴将临时的树叶，在烦惑的社会中发抖。电压是那么强，以致常有一个来历不明的陌生人在某种时刻突然闪过。接着又是一片黑暗昏黄。间或有几声闷雷在远处隐隐轰鸣，使人们意识到云中蕴蓄着的电量。
七月革命发生后还不到二十个月，一八三二年便在紧急危殆的气氛中开始了。人民的疾苦，没有面包的劳动人民，最后一个孔代亲王的横死②，仿效驱逐波旁家族的巴黎而驱逐纳索家族的布鲁塞尔，自愿归附一个法兰西亲王而终被交给一个英格兰亲王的比利时，尼古拉的俄罗斯仇恨，站在我们背后的两个南方魔鬼西班牙的斐迪南和葡萄牙的米格尔，意大利的地震，把手伸向博洛尼亚的梅特涅，在安科纳以强硬手段对付奥地利的法兰西，从北方传来把波兰钉进棺材的那阵无限悲凉的锤子声音，整个欧洲瞪眼望着法国的那种愤激目光，随时准备趁火打劫、落井下石的不可靠的盟国英格兰，躲在贝卡里亚背后拒绝向法律交出四颗人头的贵族院，从国王车子上刮掉的百合花，从圣母院拔去的十字架，物化了的拉斐德，破产了的拉菲特，死于贫困的班加曼·贡斯当，死于力竭的卡齐米尔·佩里埃，在这王国的两个都市中棗一个思想的城市，一个劳动的城市棗同时发生的政治病和社会病，巴黎的民权战争，里昂的奴役战争，两个城市中的同一种烈焰，出现在人民额头上的那种类似火山爆发的紫光，狂烈的南方，动荡的西方，待在旺代的德·贝里公爵夫人，阴谋，颠覆活动，暴乱，霍乱，这些都在种种思潮的纷争之上增添了种种事变的纷起。
①在法国一八三○年革命中，拉斐德是自由保王派，波林尼雅克是被推翻的查理十世王朝的内阁大臣。
②孔代（Condé），波旁家族的一个支系，一八三○年孔代亲王被人吊死在野外，未破案。