《旧制度与大革命·卷二·第三章·所谓行政监护亦是旧制度所创》第8节
The Seigneur, as we have already seen, stood aloof from all these details of government; he had even ceased to superintend them, or to assist in them; nay more, these duties, which had served in earlier times to keep up his power, appeared unworthy of his attention in proportion to the progressive decay of that power. It would at last have been an offence to his pride to require him to attend to them. He had ceased to govern; but his presence in the parish and his privileges effectually prevented any good government from being established in the parish in place of his own. A private person differing so entirely from the other parishioners--so independent of them, and so favoured by the laws--weakened or destroyed the authority of all rules. The unavoidable contact with such a person in the country had driven into the towns, as I shall subsequently have occasion to show, almost all those inhabitants who had either a competency or education, so that none remained about the Seigneur but a flock of ignorant and uncultivated peasants, incapable of managing the administration of their common interests. ‘A parish,’ as Turgot had justly observed, ‘is an assemblage of cabins, and of inhabitants as passive as the cabins they dwell in.’ The administrative records of the eighteenth century are full of complaints of the incapacity, indolence, and ignorance of the parochial collectors and syndics. Ministers, Intendants, Sub-delegates, and even the country gentlemen, are for ever deploring these defects; but none of them had traced these defects to their cause. Down to the Revolution the rural parishes of France had preserved in their government something of that democratic aspect which they had acquired in the Middle Ages. If the parochial officers were to be elected, or some matter of public interest to be discussed, the village bell summoned the peasants to the church-porch, where the poor as well as the rich were entitled to present themselves. In these meetings there was not indeed any regular debate or any decisive mode of voting, but every one was at liberty to speak his mind; and it was the duty of the notary, sent for on purpose, and operating in the open air, to collect these different opinions and enter them in a record of the proceedings.
注释摘要
托克维尔在这一段里处理的是旧制度乡村权力格局中一个极具讽刺意味的悖论：领主不再治理，但他的存在本身恰恰构成治理的障碍。领主从地方社会的实际管理者退场，并非一朝一夕之事。在中世纪，领主曾经兼具司法权、治安职责与对乡村共同体的监护功能，这些职责固然服务于他的私利，却也使他在事实上成为地方秩序的组织者。然而到了十八世纪，随着中央集权的不断深入和王权通过总督体系对…