Consider， indeed， the authentic monuments of Jacobin thought， the "Journal des Amis de la Constitution，" the gazettes of Loustalot， Desmoulins， Brissot， Condorcet， Fréron and Marat， Robespierre's， and St. Just's pamphlets and speeches， the debates in the Legislative Assembly and in the Convention， the harangues， addresses and reports of the Girondins and Montagnards， in brief， the forty volumes of extracts compiled by Buchez and Roux. Never has so much been said to so little purpose； all the truth that is uttered is drowned in the monotony and inflation of empty verbiage and vociferous bombast. One experience in this direction is sufficient.[17] The historian who resorts this mass of rubbish for accurate information finds none of any account； in vain will he read kilometers of it： hardly will he there meet one fact， one instructive detail， one document which brings before his eyes a distinct personality， which shows him the real sentiments of a villager or of a gentleman， which vividly portrays the interior of a h？tel-de-ville， of a soldier's barracks， of a municipal chamber， or the character of an insurrection. To define fifteen or twenty types and situations which sum up the history of the period， we have been and shall be obliged to seek them elsewhere - in the correspondence of local administrators， in affidavits on criminal records， in confidential reports of the police，[18] and in the narratives of foreigners，[19] who， prepared for it by a different education， look behind words for things， and see France beyond the "Contrat Social." This teeming France， this grand tragedy which twenty-six millions of players are performing on a stage of 26 000square leagues， is lost to the Jacobin. His literature， as well as his brain， contain only insubstantial generalizations like those above cited， rolling out in a mere play of ideas， sometimes in concise terms when the writer happens to be a professional reasoner like Condorcet， but most frequently in a tangled， knotty style full of loose and disconnected meshes when the spokesman happens to be an improvised politician or a philosophic tyro like the ordinary deputies of the Assembly and the speakers of the clubs. It is a pedantic scholasticism set forth with fanatical rant. Its entire vocabulary consists of about a hundred words， while all ideas are reduced to one， that of man in himself： human units， all alike equal and independent， contracting together for the first time. This is their concept of society. None could be briefer， for， to arrive at it， man had to be reduced to a minimum. Never were political brains so willfully dried up. For it is the attempt to systematize and to simplify which causes their impoverishment. In that respect they go by the methods of their time and in the track of Jean-Jacques Rousseau： their outlook on life is the classic view， which， already narrow in the late philosophers， has now become even more narrow and hardened. The best representatives of the type are Condorcet，[20] among the Girondins， and Robespierre， among the Montagnards， both mere dogmatists and pure logicians， the latter the most remarkable and with a perfection of intellectual sterility never surpassed. -- Unquestionably， as far as the formulation of durable laws is concerned， i.e. adapting the social machinery to personalities， conditions， and circumstances； their mentality is certainly the most impotent and harmful. It is organically short-sighted， and by interposing their principles between it and reality， they shut off the horizon. Beyond their crowd and the club it distinguishes nothing， while in the vagueness and confusion of the distance it erects the hollow idols of its own Utopia. -- But when power is to be seized by assault， and a dictatorship arbitrarily exercised， the mechanical inflexibility of such a mind is useful rather than detrimental. It is not embarrassed or slowed down， like that of a statesman， by the obligation to make inquiries， to respect precedents， of looking into statistics， of calculating and tracing beforehand in different directions the near and remote consequences of its work as this affects the interests， habits， and passions of diverse classes. All this is now obsolete and superfluous： the Jacobin knows on the spot the correct form of government and the good laws.
For both construction as well as for destruction， his rectilinear method is the quickest and most vigorous. For， if calm reflection is required to get at what suits twenty-six millions of living Frenchmen， a mere glance suffices to understand the desires of the abstract men of their theory. Indeed， according to the theory， men are all shaped to one pattern， nothing being left to them but an elementary will；thus defined， the philosophic robot demands liberty， equality and popular sovereignty， the maintenance of the rights of man and adhesion to the "Contrat Social." That is enough： from now on the will of the people is known， and known beforehand； a consultation among citizens previous to action is not essential； there is no obligation to await their votes. In any events， a ratification by the people is sure； and should this not be forthcoming it is owing to their ignorance， disdain or malice， in which case their response deserves to be considered as null. The best thing to do， consequently， through precaution and to protect the people from what is bad for them， is to dictate to them what is good for them. -- Here， the Jacobin might be sincere； for the men in whose behalf he claims rights are not flesh-and-blood Frenchmen， as we see them in the streets and in the fields， but men in general， as they ought to be on leaving the hands of Nature， or after the teachings of Reason. As to the former， there is no need of being scrupulous because they are infatuated with prejudices and their opinions are mere drivel； as for the latter， it is just the opposite：