《乌合之众·第三编·不同群体的分类与描述·议会集会》第5节
"The splendour of genius makes itself less felt in political assemblies than anywhere else. They only give heed to eloquence appropriate to the time and place and to party services, not to services rendered the country. For homage to be rendered Lamartine in 1848 and Thiers in 1871, the stimulant was needed of urgent, inexorable interest. As soon as the danger was passed the parliamentary world forgot in the same instant its gratitude and its fright." I have quoted the preceding passage for the sake of the facts it contains, not of the explanations it offers, their psychology being somewhat poor. A crowd would at once lose its character of a crowd were it to credit its leaders with their services, whether of a party nature or rendered their country. The crowd that obeys a leader is under the influence of his prestige, and its submission is not dictated by any sentiment of interest or gratitude. In consequence the leader endowed with sufficient prestige wields almost absolute power. The immense influence exerted during a long series of years, thanks to his prestige, by a celebrated Deputy,[28] beaten at the last general election in consequence of certain financial events, is well known. He had only to give the signal and Cabinets were overthrown. A writer has clearly indicated the scope of his action in the following lines:--
注释摘要
勒庞在这一段里借用了朱尔·西蒙对1848年制宪议会的回忆，目的是证明议会集会中的领袖权力几乎完全建立在个人名望之上，而非理性功绩或感恩之情。他引述的事实很清楚：维克多·雨果登上讲坛，这位文学天才并未获得预期的成功；埃德加·基内才智超群，在议会中却毫无声望；拉马丁在1848年、梯也尔在1871年之所以受到推崇，都是因为国家面临迫切而无情的危机，一旦危险过去，…