《乌合之众·第一编·群体的心理·群体的情感与道德》第13节
To return to the faculty of observation possessed by crowds, our conclusion is that their collective observations are as erroneous as possible, and that most often they merely represent the illusion of an individual who, by a process of contagion, has suggestioned his fellows. Facts proving that the most utter mistrust of the evidence of crowds is advisable might be multiplied to any extent. Thousands of men were present twenty-five years ago at the celebrated cavalry charge during the battle of Sedan, and yet it is impossible, in the face of the most contradictory ocular testimony, to decide by whom it was commanded. The English general, Lord Wolseley, has proved in a recent book that up to now the gravest errors of fact have been committed with regard to the most important incidents of the battle of Waterloo--facts that hundreds of witnesses had nevertheless attested.[5] [5] Do we know in the case of one single battle exactly how it took place? I am very doubtful on the point. We know who were the conquerors and the conquered, but this is probably all. What M. D'Harcourt has said with respect to the battle of Solferino, which he witnessed and in which he was personally engaged, may be applied to all battles--"The generals (informed, of course, by the evidence of hundreds of witnesses) forward their official reports; the orderly officers modify these documents and draw up a definite narrative; the chief of the staff raises objections and re-writes the whole on a fresh basis. It is carried to the Marshal, who exclaims, `You are entirely in error,' and he substitutes a fresh edition. Scarcely anything remains of the original report." M. D'Harcourt relates this fact as proof of the impossibility of establishing the truth in connection with the most striking, the best observed events.
注释摘要
勒庞在这一段里试图将他对群体观察力的怀疑推到极致。他的核心论证是：群体不仅容易受暗示、产生集体幻觉，就连那些被数百甚至数千人亲眼目睹的重大历史事件，其集体证词也几乎必然是错的。为了证明这一点，他搬出了十九世纪军事史上的几个著名案例。 他首先提到的是二十五年前色当战役中的一次骑兵冲锋。上千名士兵在场，却没有人能一致说清楚到底是谁下的命令。这里说到的色当战役发…