《乌合之众·第三编·不同群体的分类与描述·议会集会》第4节
Still, it is the leaders who are definitely the masters in those numerous discussions, with regard to the subject-matter of which the members of an assembly are without strong preconceived opinions. The necessity for these leaders is evident, since, under the name of heads of groups, they are met with in the assemblies of every country. They are the real rulers of an assembly. Men forming a crowd cannot do without a master, whence it results that the votes of an assembly only represent, as a rule, the opinions of a small minority. The influence of the leaders is due in very small measure to the arguments they employ, but in a large degree to their prestige. The best proof of this is that, should they by any circumstance lose their prestige, their influence disappears. The prestige of these political leaders is individual, and independent of name or celebrity: a fact of which M. Jules Simon gives us some very curious examples in his remarks on the prominent men of the Assembly of 1848, of which he was a member:-- "Two months before he was all-powerful, Louis Napoleon was entirely without the least importance. "Victor Hugo mounted the tribune. He failed to achieve success. He was listened to as Felix Pyat was listened to, but he did not obtain as much applause. `I don't like his ideas,' Vaulabelle said to me, speaking of Felix Pyat,' but he is one of the greatest writers and the greatest orator of France.' Edgar Quinet, in spite of his exceptional and powerful intelligence, was held in no esteem whatever. He had been popular for awhile before the opening of the Assembly; in the Assembly he had no popularity.
注释摘要
在这一段中，勒庞试图论证的是，当议会面对一般性议题、议员们缺乏预设立场时，少数领袖便凭借个人名望而非论证能力，成为议会真正的统治者。他用了一个极为冷静的逻辑：一群人聚集成群便离不开主人，因而议会的表决往往只代表一个极小圈子的意志；领袖之所以能发号施令，靠的主要不是道理，而是他在那一群人眼中所拥有的名望。名望一失，影响力即刻消散。为了证明名望独立于名气与才华…