Revolusi Prancis (Belloc)/Bab 3/Raja Louis

III

TOKOH-TOKOH REVOLUSI

RAJA LOUIS XVI

Seperti yang diharapkan, tokoh Raja Louis XVI mengalami banyak penzaliman di tangan sejarawan ketimbang tokoh revolusioner lainnya; dan ini karena ia dipadukan dengan tokoh pribadinya pada ranah tertentu yang biasanya mendorong sudut pandang tertentu dan metode penindakan yang diambil oleh sejarawan untuk diberikan kala ia bersinggungan dengan sifat tokoh tersebut. Seperti orang manapun yang berpikir hakim dari beberapa pendirian terhadap meja hijau Inggris tak dapat selain meyakini bahwa ia memiliki beberapa pemahaman atau beberapa penekanan, dll; seperti orang manapun yang menyidangkan prajurit terkenal yang tak dapat selain meyakini bahwa ia memiliki kualitas tertentu yang dikaitkan dengan upaya keprajuritan, sehingga sejarawan menyamakan kepribadian dan sosok Louis XVI dengan pengabdiannya. Hal ini berseberangan dengan sifat tak rajawinya atau simpati yang mentujukan pertentangan rajawinya untuk reformasi.

Pelajar jug akan menghindari kesalahan ini dan sumbernya, dan berpikir bahwa Louis adalah sosok yang layak diperkenalkan, nyaris tanpa persiapan, pada jabatan yang dipegang olehnya. Dalam kata lain, pelajar juga akan melakukannya, kala membaca Revolusi, untuk menganggap Louis XVI singkatnya sebagai seorang sosok, dan ketokohannya sebagai karakter pribadi. Karena sepanjang itu, garis Capetian yang tak terputus memegang ketokohan tunggal yang khas. Ini adalah jenis yang, tanpa diragukan lagi mencelakai keberuntungan yang dapat jatuh pada penentangnya, akan mengalami hal yang sama. Meskipun demikian, seorang sosok memegang jabatan tinggi kurang mengalami pengecapan.

Orang yang mengalami keadaan tersebut umumnya timbul dari dua sebab: dari inisiatif pribadi dan mendalam yang menyenggol kegilaan, atau dari hal yang tebal dan berat dalam dorongan moral mereka yang bertindak melawan tindakan temperamen pribadi dalam. Sebab kedua adalah kasus dari Louis.

ia sangat lambat berpikir, dan sangat lambat memutuskan. Gerak fisiknya lambat. Gerak matanya sangat lambat. Ia jatuh tertidur di bawah keadaan letih pada saat-saat paling runyam. Hal-hal yang dihadapinya bersifat sangat besar dan tinggi. Permaina kuno, yang kini dan waktu itu sedikit bersentuhan dengan eksentrisitas, dan sangat datar selain lelucon tak diharapkan. Orang mengekspresikannya dari satu aspek dengan berujar bahwa ia ia adalah salah satu orang yang tak pernah kau dapat dengan kesempatan apapun yang diharapkan untuk melakukan hal apapun. Sedikit hal yang dapat diterima olehnya dengan sangat sederhana, dan proses pengakalan pada mulut orang manapun yang mendukungnya selalu terlalu cepat baginya untuk disusul. Namun, ini tak harus dibayangkan pada catatan bahwa peneguhan moral sangat dinyatakan nyaris selaku sumpah. Sebaliknya, ini menutup karakter yang sangat pasti. Louis menghimpun sejumlah dakwaan berat yang tak ia terapkan. Ia sangat didakwa atas keberadaan dan nilai tradisi bersama tertentu di wilayah kekuasannya: negara Prancis. Ia adalah bangsanya. Dalam hal ini, ia berbeda dari banyak orang, banyak abdi, banyak gerejawan, dan banyak wanita di sekitarnya, khususnya istrinya.

Ia lagi-lagi memegang seluruh unsur iman Katolik.

It was, indeed, a singular thing for a man of his position at such a time to hold intimately to religion, but Louis held to it. He confessed, he communicated, he attended mass, he performed his ordinary devotions—not by way of tradition or political duty, or State function, to which religious performance was now reduced in the vast majority of his wealthy contemporaries, but as an individual for whom these things had a personal value. Had he, with precisely the same interior spirit, woken in his bed some morning to find himself a country squire, and to discover that all his past kingship had been a dream of the night, he would have continued the practice of his religion as before.

Now this is a sufficiently remarkable point, for the country squire, the noble, the lawyer, the university professor of the generation immediately preceding the Revolution had, as a rule, no conception of the Catholic Church. With them the faith was dead, save in the case of a very few who made it, if one may say so without disrespect, a mania, and in their exaggerations were themselves the proofs of the depth of decay into which the Church of Gaul had fallen.

Louis XVI was possessed, then, of religion: it appeared in many of his acts, in his hesitation to appoint not a few of the many atheist bishops of the time, in his real agony of responsibility upon the Civil Constitution of the clergy, and in nothing more than the peculiar sobriety and solid ritual whereby he prepared for a tragic, sudden, and ignominious death.

It is next to be observed that though he was a man not yet in middle age, and though he was quite devoid of ardour in any form, he had from the first matured a great basis of courage. It is well to admit that this quality in him was connected with those slow processes of thought and action which hampered him, but it is not to be explained by them. No man yet has become brave through mere stupidity.

It was not only the accidents of the Revolution that proved this quality in him: his physical habits proved it long before. He was a resolute and capable rider of the horse: an aptitude in that exercise is impossible to the coward. Again, in those by-products of courage which are apparent, even where no physical danger threatens, he was conspicuous; he had no hesitation in facing a number of men, and he had aptitude in a mechanical trade—a business by no means unconnected with virility.

Now in mentioning his virility, it is of prime importance for the student to remember, though the matter can be touched upon but lightly, that Louis, in this department of physical life, suffered from a mechanical impediment which gravely distorted the first years of his marriage, which undoubtedly wounded his self-respect, and which was perhaps the only thing that caused him permanent anxiety. He was cured by medical aid in the summer of the year 1777, but he was already three years a king and seven years a husband before that relief came to him. The tragedy affected his whole life, and, I repeat, must never be forgotten when one considers either him or Marie Antoinette in their intimate character, and in their effect as actors in the great drama.

For the rest, the character of Louis betrayed certain ineptitudes (the word ineptitude is far more accurate in this connection than the word weakness), which ineptitudes were peculiarly fatal for the military office which he held and for the belligerent crisis which he had to meet.

Few men are possessed of the eye, the subtle sympathy, the very rapid power of decision, and the comprehension of human contrasts and differences which build up the apt leader of an armed force great or small. Most men are mediocre in the combination of these qualities. But Louis was quite exceptionally hopeless where they were concerned. He could never have seen the simplest position nor have appreciated the military aspects of any character or of any body of men. He could ride, but he could not ride at the head of a column. He was not merely bad at this trade, he was nul. Drafted as a private into a conscript army, he would never have been entrusted with the duties of a corporal. He would have been impossible as a sergeant; and, possessed of commissioned rank, ridicule would have compelled him to take his discharge.

This lack did not only, or chiefly, betray itself in his inability to meet personally the armed crisis of a revolution; it was not only, or chiefly, apparent in his complete breakdown during the assault upon the palace on the 10th of August: it was also, and much more, the disastrous cause of his inability to oversee, or even to choose, military advisers.

Those who propose in the early part of the Revolution to check the mob in Paris, are excellent commanders: but Louis does not know it. Those who succeed each other at the Ministry of War, or at the head of the armies during the active part of the revolution are various in the extreme: but they all seem one to him. Between a fop like Narbonne and a subtle, trained cavalry man like Dumouriez, Louis made no distinction. The military qualities of La Fayette (which were not to be despised) meant no more to him than does music, good or bad, to a deaf man. From the beginning to the end of the movement, the whole of the military problem escaped him.

Another hole in his character, which was of prime importance at such a time, was his inability to grasp in a clear vision any general social problem. Maps he could well comprehend, and he could well retain statistics; but the landscape, as it were, of the Revolution his protuberant and lethargic eyes completely missed. He was quite unable to see where lay danger and where support, in what large masses such and such forces were grouped, and the directions in which they were advancing, or upon which they must retreat. In this matter he was, as will be seen in a moment, the very opposite of Mirabeau, and it was on account of this weakness, or rather this form of nullity, that all Mirabeau’s vision was wasted upon Louis.

Finally, he had no working comprehension of Europe. He did not even exaggerate the powers of the allies in the later phases of the Revolution when they were marching upon France. He did not either under-estimate or over-estimate the policy and naval force of Great Britain, the military resources of his own subjects, the probable sympathies of the Netherlands (anti-Austrian but Catholic), the decay of Spain, the division and impotence of the Italian Peninsula. Louis saw nothing of all these things.

One may conclude the picture (for the purposes of such a short study as this) by saying that only one coincidence could have led him through the labyrinth of the time with success. That coincidence would have been the presence at his side of a friend fully trusted from childhood, loved, as religious as himself, and yet possessing precisely those qualities which he himself lacked. Had Louis found to hand such a lieutenant, the qualities I have mentioned would have been a sort of keel and ballast which would have secured the monarchy, for he was not weak, he was not impulsive, he was not even foolish: he was only wretchedly alone in his incapacities. Certainly such a nature could trust and rely upon no one who was not of this intimate kind, and he possessed no such intimate, let alone an intimate who could command the qualities I have suggested.

Being what he was, his character is among the half-dozen which determined the Revolution to take the course which it did.