The French RevolutionSri Aurobindo
The Hour of God
and other writings
X. Historical Impressions
The French Revolution
The greatness of the French Revolution lies not in what it effected, but in what it thought and was.
Its action was chiefly destructive.
It prepared many things, it founded nothing.
Even the constructive activity of Napoleon only built a half-way house in which the ideas of 1789 might rest until the world was fit to understand them better and really fulfil them.
The ideas themselves were not new; they existed in Christianity and before Christianity they existed in Buddhism; but in 1789 they came out for the first time from the Church and the Book and sought to remodel government and society.
It was an unsuccessful attempt, but even the failure changed the face of Europe.
And this effect was chiefly due to the force, the enthusiasm, the sincerity with which the idea was seized upon and the thoroughness with which it was sought to be applied.
The cause of the failure was the defect of knowledge, the excess of imagination.
The basal ideas, the types, the things to be established were known; but there had been no experience of the ideas in practice.
European society, till then, had been permeated, not with liberty, but with bondage and repression; not with equality, but with inequality; not1 with brotherhood, but with selfish force and violence.
The world was not ready, nor is it even now ready for the fullness of the practice.
It is the goal of humanity, and we are yet far off from the goal.
But the time has come for an approximation being attempted.
And the first necessity is the discipline of brotherhood, the organisation of brotherhood; for without the spirit and habit of fraternity neither liberty nor equality can be maintained for more than a short season.
The French were ignorant of this practical principle; they made liberty the basis, brotherhood the superstructure, founding the triangle upon its apex.
For owing to the dominance of Greece and Rome in their imagination they were saturated with the idea of liberty and only formally admitted the Christian and Asiatic principle of brotherhood.
They built according to their 
knowledge, but the triangle has to be reversed before it can stand permanently.
*
The action of the French Revolution was the vehement death-dance of Kali trampling blindly, furiously on the ruins She made, mad with pity for the world and therefore utterly pitiless. She called the Yatudhani in her to her aid and summoned up the Rakshasi. The Yatudhani is the delight of destruction, the fury of slaughter, Rudra in the Universal Being, Rudra, who uses the Bhuta2, the criminal, the lord of the animal in man, the lord of the demoniac, Pashupati, Pramathanatha. The Rakshasi is the unbridled, licentious self-assertion of the ego which insists on the gratification of all its instincts good and bad and furiously shatters all opposition. It was the Yatudhani and the Rakshasi who sent their hoarse cry over France, adding to the luminous Mantra, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, the stern and terrible addition "or death". Death to the Asura, death to all who oppose God's evolution, that was the meaning. With these two terrible Shaktis Kali did Her work. She veiled Her divine knowledge with the darkness of wrath and passion, She drank blood as wine, naked of tradition and convention She danced over all Europe and the whole continent was filled with the war-cry and the carnage and ran3 with the hunkara and the attahasyam. It was only when She found that She was trampling on Mahadeva, God expressed in the principle of Nationalism, that She remembered Herself, flung aside Napoleon, the mighty Rakshasa, and settled down quietly to her work of perfecting nationality as the outer shell within which brotherhood may be securely and largely organised.
*
The Revolution was also great in its men, filling them all with its vehemence, its passion, its fierce demand on the world, its colossal impetus.
Through four of them chiefly it helped itself, through Mirabeau, Danton, Robespierre and Napoleon.
Mirabeau initiated, Danton inspired, Robespierre slew, Napoleon fulfilled.
The first three appeared for the moment, the man in 
the multitude, did their work and departed.
The pace was swift and, if they had remained, they would have outstayed their utility and injured the future.
It is always well for the man to go the moment his work is done and not to outstay the Mother's welcome.
They are fortunate who get that release or are wise enough, like Garibaldi, to take it.
Not altogether happy is their lot who, like Napoleon or Mazzini, outstay the lease of their appointed greatness.
*
Mirabeau ruled the morning twilight, the sandhya of the new age. Aristocratic tribune of the people, unprincipled champion of principles, lordly democrat, — a man in whom reflection was turbulent, prudence itself bold, unflinching and reckless, the man was the meeting-place of two ages. He had the passions of the past, not its courtly restraint; the turbulence, genius, impetuosity of the future, not its steadying attachment to ideas. There is an honour of the aristocrat which has its root in manners and respects the sanctity of its own traditions; that is the honour of the Conservative. There is an honour of the democrat which has its root in ideas and respects the sanctity of its own principles; that is the honour of the Liberal. Mirabeau had neither. He was the pure Egoist, the eternal Rakshasa. Not for the sake of justice and liberty did he love justice and liberty, but for the sake of Mirabeau. Had his career been fortunate, the forms of the old regime wide enough to satisfy his ambitions and passions, the upheaval of 1789 might have found him on the other side. But because the heart and senses of Mirabeau were unsatisfied, the French Revolution triumphed. So it is that God prepares the man and the moment, using good and evil with a divine impartiality for His mighty ends. Without the man the moment is a lost opportunity; without the moment the man is a force inoperative. The meeting of the two changes the destinies of nations and the poise of the world is altered by what seems to the superficial an accident.
*
There are times when a single personality gathers up the temperament of an epoch or a movement and by simply existing ensures its fulfilment.
It would be difficult to lay down the precise services which made the existence of Danton necessary for the success of the Revolution.
There are certain things he did, and no man else could have done, which compelled destiny; there are certain things he said which made France mad with resolution and courage.
These words, these doings ring through the ages.
So live, so immortal are they that they seem to defy cataclysm itself and insist on surviving eternal oblivion.
They are full of the omnipotence and immortality of the human soul and its lordship over fate.
One feels that they will recur again in aeons unborn and worlds uncreated.
The power from which they sprang, expressed itself rarely in deeds and only at supreme moments.
The energy of Danton lay dormant, indolent, scattering itself in stupendous oratory, satisfied with feelings and phrases.
But each time it stirred, it convulsed events and sent a shock of primal elemental force rushing through the consciousness of the French nation.
While he lived, moved, spoke, felt, acted, the energy he did not himself use, communicated itself to the millions; the thoughts he did not utter, seized on minds which took them for their own; the actions he might have done better himself, were done worse by others.
Danton was contented.
Magnificent and ostentatious, he was singularly void of personal ambition.
He was satisfied to see the Revolution triumph by his strength, but in the deeds of others.
His fall removed the strength of victorious Terror from the movement within France, its impulse to destroy and conquer.
For a little while the impetus gathered carried it on, then it faltered and paused.
Every great flood of action needs a human soul for its centre, an embodied point of the Universal Personality from which to surge out upon others.
Danton was such a point, such a centre.
His daily thoughts, feelings, impulses gave an equilibrium to that rushing fury, a fixity to that pregnant chaos.
He was the character of the Revolution personified, — its heart, while Robespierre was only its hand.
History which, being European, lays much stress on events, a little on speech, but has never realised the importance of souls, cannot appreciate men like Danton.
Only the eye of the 
seer can pick them out from the mass and trace to their source those immense vibrations.
*
One may well speak of the genius of Mirabeau, the genius of Danton; it is superfluous to speak of the genius of Napoleon.
But one cannot well speak of the genius of Robespierre.
He was empty of genius; his intellect was acute and well-informed but uninspired; his personality fails to impress.
What was it then that gave him his immense force and influence?
It was the belief in the man, his faith.
He believed in the Revolution, he believed in certain ideas, he believed in himself as their spokesman and executor; he came to believe in his mission to slay the enemies of the idea and make an end.
And whatever he believed, he believed implicitly, unfalteringly, invincibly and pursued it with a rigid fidelity.
Mirabeau, Danton, Napoleon were all capable of permanent discouragement, could recognise that they were beaten, the hour unsuitable, fate hostile.
Robespierre was not.
He might recoil, he might hide his head in fear, but it was only to leap again, to save himself for the next opportunity.
He had a tremendous force of sraddha.
It is only such men, thoroughly conscientious and well-principled, who can slay without pity, without qualms, without resting, without turning.
The Yatudhani seized on him for her purpose.
The conscientious lawyer who refused a judgeship rather than sacrifice his principle by condemning a criminal to death, became the most colossal political executioner of his or any age.
As we have said, if Danton was the character of the French Revolution personified when it went forth to slay, Robespierre was its hand.
But, naturally, he could not recognise that limitation; he aspired to think, to construct, to rule, functions for which he was unfit.
When Danton demanded that the Terror should cease and Mercy take its place, Robespierre ought to have heard in his demand the voice of the Revolution calling on him to stay his sanguinary course.
But he was full of his own blind faith and would not hear.
Danton died because he resisted the hand of Kali, but his mighty disembodied spirit triumphed and imposed his last thought on the country.
The Terror ceased; 
Mercy took its place.
Robespierre, however, has his place of honour in history; he was the man of conscience and principle among the four, the man who never turned from the path of what he understood to be virtue.
*
Napoleon took up into himself the functions of the others. As Mirabeau initiated destruction, he initiated construction and organisation and in the same self-contradictory spirit; he was the Rakshasa, the most gigantic egoist in history, the despot of liberty, the imperial protector of equality, the unprincipled organiser of great principles. Like Danton, he shaped events for a time by his thoughts and character. While Danton lived, politics moved to a licentious democracy, war to a heroism, of patriotic defence. From the time he passed, the spirit of Napoleon shaped events and politics moved to the rule first of the civil, then of the military dictator, war to the organisation of republican conquest. Like Robespierre he was the executive hand of destruction and unlike Robespierre the executive hand of construction. The fury of Kali became in him self-centred, capable, full of organised thought and activity, but nonetheless impetuous, colossal, violent, devastating.
1 2003 ed.: inequality and injustice; not
2 2003 ed.: Rudra, the bhuta
3 2003 ed.: rang