But the task of sages is one thing, the task of clever men is another. The Revolution of 1830 came to a sudden halt.
As soon as a revolution has made the coast, the skilful make haste to prepare the shipwreck.
The skilful in our century have conferred on themselves the title of Statesmen; so that this word, statesmen, has ended by becoming somewhat of a slang word. It must be borne in mind, in fact, that wherever there is nothing but skill, there is necessarily pettiness. To say "the skilful" amounts to saying "the mediocre."
In the same way, to say "statesmen" is sometimes equivalent to saying "traitors." If, then, we are to believe the skilful, revolutions like the Revolution of July are severed arteries; a prompt ligature is indispensable. The right, too grandly proclaimed, is shaken. Also, right once firmly fixed, the state must be strengthened. Liberty once assured, attention must be directed to power.
Here the sages are not, as yet, separated from the skilful, but they begin to be distrustful. Power, very good. But, in the first place, what is power? In the second, whence comes it? The skilful do not seem to hear the murmured objection, and they continue their manoeuvres.
According to the politicians, who are ingenious in putting the mask of necessity on profitable fictions, the first requirement of a people after a revolution, when this people forms part of a monarchical continent, is to procure for itself a dynasty. In this way, say they, peace, that is to say, time to dress our wounds, and to repair the house, can be had after a revolution. The dynasty conceals the scaffolding and covers the ambulance. Now, it is not always easy to procure a dynasty.
If it is absolutely necessary, the first man of genius or even the first man of fortune who comes to hand suffices for the manufacturing of a king. You have, in the first case, Napoleon; in the second, Iturbide.
But the first family that comes to hand does not suffice to make a dynasty. There is necessarily required a certain modicum of antiquity in a race, and the wrinkle of the centuries cannot be improvised.
If we place ourselves at the point of view of the "statesmen," after making all allowances, of course, after a revolution, what are the qualities of the king which result from it? He may be and it is useful for him to be a revolutionary; that is to say, a participant in his own person in that revolution, that he should have lent a hand to it, that he should have either compromised or distinguished himself therein, that he should have touched the axe or wielded the sword in it.
What are the qualities of a dynasty? It should be national; that is to say, revolutionary at a distance, not through acts committed, but by reason of ideas accepted. It should be composed of past and be historic; be composed of future and be sympathetic.
All this explains why the early revolutions contented themselves with finding a man, Cromwell or Napoleon; and why the second absolutely insisted on finding a family, the House of Brunswick or the House of Orleans.
Royal houses resemble those Indian fig-trees, each branch of which, bending over to the earth, takes root and becomes a fig-tree itself. Each branch may become a dynasty. On the sole condition that it shall bend down to the people.
Such is the theory of the skilful.
Here, then, lies the great art: to make a little render to success the sound of a catastrophe in order that those who profit by it may tremble from it also, to season with fear every step that is taken, to augment the curve of the transition to the point of retarding progress, to dull that aurora, to denounce and retrench the harshness of enthusiasm, to cut all angles and nails, to wad triumph, to muffle up right, to envelop the giant-people in flannel, and to put it to bed very speedily, to impose a diet on that excess of health, to put Hercules on the treatment of a convalescent, to dilute the event with the expedient, to offer to spirits thirsting for the ideal that nectar thinned out with a potion, to take one's precautions against too much success, to garnish the revolution with a shade.
1830 practised this theory, already applied to England by 1688.
1830 is a revolution arrested midway. Half of progress, quasi-right. Now, logic knows not the "almost," absolutely as the sun knows not the candle.
Who arrests revolutions half-way? The bourgeoisie?
Why?
Because the bourgeoisie is interest which has reached satisfaction. Yesterday it was appetite, to-day it is plenitude, to-morrow it will be satiety.
The phenomenon of 1814 after Napoleon was reproduced in 1830 after Charles X.
The attempt has been made, and wrongly, to make a class of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is simply the contented portion of the people.The bourgeois is the man who now has time to sit down. A chair is not a caste.
But through a desire to sit down too soon, one may arrest the very march of the human race. This has often been the fault of the bourgeoisie.
One is not a class because one has committed a fault. Selfishness is not one of the divisions of the social order. Moreover, we must be just to selfishness. The state to which that part of the nation which is called the bourgeoisie aspired after the shock of 1830 was not the inertia which is complicated with indifference and laziness, and which contains a little shame; it was not the slumber which presupposes a momentary forgetfulness accessible to dreams; it was the halt.
The halt is a word formed of a singular double and almost contradictory sense: a troop on the march,that is to say, movement; a stand, that is to say, repose.
The halt is the restoration of forces; it is repose armed and on the alert; it is the accomplished fact which posts sentinels and holds itself on its guard.
The halt presupposes the combat of yesterday and the combat of to-morrow.
It is the partition between 1830 and 1848.
What we here call combat may also be designated as progress.
The bourgeoisie then, as well as the statesmen, required a man who should express this word Halt. An Although-Because. A composite individuality, signifying revolution and signifying stability, in other terms, strengthening the present by the evident compatibility of the past with the future.
This man was "already found." His name was Louis Philippe d'Orleans.
The 221 made Louis Philippe King. Lafayette undertook the coronation.
He called it the best of republics. The town-hall of Paris took the place of the Cathedral of Rheims.
This substitution of a half-throne for a whole throne was "the work of 1830."
When the skilful had finished, the immense vice of their solution became apparent. All this had been accomplished outside the bounds of absolute right. Absolute right cried: "I protest!" then, terrible to say, it retired into the darkness.
但是哲人的工作是一回事，机灵人的工作是另一回事。
一八三○年的革命很快就止步不前了。
革命一旦搁浅，机灵人立即破坏这搁浅的船。
机灵人，在我们这个世纪里，都自加封号，自命为政治家；因而政治家这个词儿到后来多少有点行话的味道。我们确实不应当忘记，凡是有机智的地方，就必然有小家气。所谓机灵人，也就是庸俗人。
同样，所谓政治家，有时也就等于说：民贼。
按照那些机灵人的说法，革命，象七月革命那样的革命，是动脉管破裂，应当赶快把它缝起来。人权，如果要求过高，便会发生动荡。因此，人权一经认可以后，就应巩固政府。自由有了保障以后，就应想到政权。
到这里，哲人还不至于和机灵人分离，但是已经开始有了戒心。政权，好吧。但是，首先得搞清楚，什么是政权？其次，政权是从什么地方来的？
机灵人似乎听不见这种窃窃私议的反对意见，仍旧继续他们的勾当。
根据那些善于伪称于己有利的意图为实际需要的聪明政治家的说法，革命后的人民最迫切需求的，就一个君主国的人民来说，便是找一个王室的后裔。这样，他们认为，便能在革命以后享有和平，就是说，享有医治创伤和修补房屋的时间。旧王朝可以遮掩脚手架和伤兵医疗站。
但是要找到一个王室的后裔不总是那么容易的。
严格地说，任何一个有才能的人，或者，甚至任何一个有钱的人都够格当国王。波拿巴是前一种例子，伊土比德①是后一种例子。
①伊土比德（Iturbide），墨西哥将军，一八二一年称帝，一八二四年被处决。
可是并非任何一个家族都可以拿来当作一个王族的世系。还得多少有点古老的根源才行，几个世纪的皱纹并不是一下子就可以形成的。
假使我们站在那些“政治家”的观点去看棗当然，我们要保留自己的全部意见棗，在革命以后，从革命中产生出来的国王应当具备哪些优越条件呢？他可以是并且最好是革命的，就是说，亲自参加过这次革命的，在那里面插过手的，不问他是否败坏或建立了声望，不问他使过的是斧子还是剑。
一个王裔应当具备哪些优越条件呢？他应当是民族主义的，就是说，不即不离的革命者，这不是从他具体的行动看，而是从他所接受的思想看。他应和已往的历史有渊源，又能对未来起作用，并且还是富于同情心的。
这一切便说明了为什么早期的革命能满足于选择一个人，克伦威尔或拿破仑；而后来的革命却非选择一个家族不可，不伦瑞克家族或奥尔良家族。
这些王室颇象印度的一种无花果树，这种树的枝条能垂向地面，并在土里生根，成为另一棵无花果树。每一根树枝都能建成一个王朝。唯一的条件是向人民低下头来。
这便是那些机灵人的理论。
因而出现了这样的伟大艺术：使胜利多少响起一点灾难的声音，以使利用胜利的人同时也为胜利发抖，每前进一步便散布一点恐怖气氛，拉长过渡工作中的弯路以使进步迟缓下来，冲淡初现的曙光，指控和遏制热情的谋划，削平尖角和利爪，用棉花捂住欢呼胜利的嘴，给人权穿上龙钟肥厚的衣服，把魁伟高大的人民裹在法兰绒里，叫他们赶快去睡觉，强迫过分健康的人忌口，教铁汉子接受初愈病人的饮食，挖空心思去做分化瓦解的工作，请那些害远大理想病的人喝些掺了甘草水的蜜酒，采取种种措施来防止过大的成功，替革命加上一个遮光罩。
一八三○年便采用了这种一六八八年①在英国已使用过的理论。
①一六八八年奥伦治家族取代斯图亚特家族登上英国王位。
一八三○是一次在半山腰里停了下来的革命。半吊子进步，表面的人权。逻辑可不懂得什么叫做差不离，绝对象太阳不承认蜡烛那样。
是谁使历次革命停留在半山腰呢？资产阶级。
为什么？
因为资产阶级代表满足了的利益。昨天是饿，今天是饱，明天将是胀。
出现在一八一四年拿破仑下台以后的情况又出现在一八三○年查理十世之后。
人们错误地把资产阶级当作一个阶级。资产阶级只不过是人民中得到满足的那一部分人。资产阶级中的人是那种现在有时间坐下来的人。一张椅子并不是一个社会等级。
但是，由于过早地要求坐下，人们甚至要停止人类前进的步伐。这向来是资产阶级犯下的错误。
人并不因为犯一次错误而成为一个阶级。利己主义不是社会组织的一部分。
并且，说话应当公正，即使对利己主义，也应当如此；在一八三○年的震动以后，人民中间所谓资产阶级那一部分人所指望的并不是由淡漠和懒惰所构成并含着一点羞愧心情的那种无所作为的局面，也不是那种类似沉沉入梦暂忘一切的睡眠，而是立定。
立定，这个词儿，含有一种奇特的并且几乎是矛盾的双重意义：对行进中的部队来说是前进，对进驻来说是休整。
立定，是力量的休整，是拿着武器的警觉的休息，是布置哨兵进行防卫的既成事实。立定，意味着昨天的战斗和明天的战斗。
这是一八三○和一八四八的中间站。
我们在这儿所说的战斗也可以称为进步。
因此，无论对资产阶级或对政治家们来说，都必须有一个人出来发布这个命令：立定。一个“虽然·因为”。一个既表示革命又表示稳定，换言之，一个能以其调和过去和未来的显明力量来巩固现在的两面人。
这个人是“现成摆着的”。他叫路易－菲力浦·德·奥尔良。
二二一人便把路易－菲力浦捧上了王位。拉斐德主持了加冕典礼。他称他为“最好的共和国”。巴黎市政厅代替了兰斯的天主堂。①这样以半王位代替全王位便是“一八三○年的成绩”。
①法国革命前国王在兰斯的教堂里举行加冕礼。
那些机灵人的大功告成以后，他们的灵药的大毛病便出现了。这一切都是在无视于绝对人权的情况下进行的。绝对人权喊了一声：“我抗议！”紧跟着，一种可怕的现象，它又回到黑暗中去了。