《旧制度与大革命·卷三·第三章·法国高等法院如何循着旧例反而倾覆了王权》第5节
When, therefore, the Parliament of Paris spoke in this manner on the subject of taxes, it merely followed an old and general practice. The play was the same, but the audience was changed; and the clamour, instead of dying away as it had commonly done within the limit of the classes whom their privileges caused to be but little affected by taxation, was now so loud and so reiterated that it penetrated to those classes which bore the heaviest burden, and ere long filled them with indignation. If the Parliament employed new arguments to vindicate its own rights, the Government employed arguments not less new in defence of its ancient prerogatives. For example, in a pamphlet attributed to the Court, which appeared about that time, the following passage occurs:--‘It is a question of privilege which excites the Parliament. They want to retain their exemption from taxation; this is nothing but a formidable combination between the nobility of sword and gown to continue under colour of liberty to humble and enslave the commons, whom the King alone defends, and means to raise.’ ‘My object has been’ said Calonne, ‘to slay the hydra of privileges, exemptions, and abuses.’ Whilst, however, these discussions were going on upon the principle of government, the daily work of administration threatened to stop: there was no money. The Parliament had rejected the measures relating to taxation. It refused to sanction a loan. In this perplexity the King, seeing that he could not gain over the Assembly, attempted to coerce it. He went down to the Chamber, and before he proceeded to command their submission, less eager to exercise his rights than to confirm them, he caused the Edicts to be again debated in his presence. He began by laying down that his authority was absolute. The legislative power resided in its integrity in his hands. He required no extraordinary powers to carry on the government. The States-General, when he chose to consult them, could only tender advice; he was still the supreme arbiter of their representations and their grievances. This sitting took place on November 19th, 1787. Having said thus much, every one was allowed to speak in his presence. The most opposite and often violent propositions were asserted to his face during a discussion of eight hours; after which he withdrew, declaring, as his last word, that he refused to convoke the States-General at present, though he promised them for the year 1791.
注释摘要
在这一段里，托克维尔作出了一个极其关键的政治社会学判断：同样的表演，换了一批观众，效果就天翻地覆。高等法院对税收的激烈谴责并非新闻，它在旧制度下早已形成一套半仪式化的抗议传统。托克维尔称之为“旧的和普遍的实践”——法官们把盐税骂成“盐税地狱机器”，把包税人称作靠众人贫困致富的公贼，这些话连政府自己都不怎么否认，因为征税权早已被包租给私人利益集团，国王的代理…