《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10节
But, what was even more remarkable than the diversity of these attacks, was the uniform intention which animated them. Each of the thirteen courts struggled after its own fashion and upon its own soil, but the sentiment which excited them was identically the same. The remonstrances made at that time by the different Parliaments, and published by them, would fill many volumes; but open the book where you will, you seem to be reading the same page: always the same thoughts expressed for the most part in the same words. All of them demanded the States-General in the name of the imprescriptible rights of the nation: all of them approved the conduct of the Parliament of Paris, protested against the acts of violence directed against it, encouraged it to resist, and imitated, as well as it could, not only its measures, but the philosophical language of its opposition. ‘Subjects,’ said the Parliament of Grenoble, ‘have rights as well as the sovereign--rights which are essential to all who are not slaves.’ ‘The just man,’ said the Parliament of Normandy, ‘does not change his principles when he changes his abode.’ ‘The King,’ said the Parliament of Besançon, ‘cannot wish to have for his subjects humiliated slaves.’ The tumult raised at the same time by all these magistrates scattered over the surface of the country sounds like the confused noise of a multitude: listen attentively to what they are saying: it is as the voice of one man.
注释摘要
托克维尔在这一段里捕捉到了一个令人费解的现象，并由此引申出他对旧制度下民族统一的深层判断。初看起来，十三家高等法院各自为政，彼此独立，甚至说不上有什么协调机制，它们攻击王室敕令的角度、轻重、程序也各不相同。可是，只要翻开它们那些冗长的谏诤书，就会发现一种惊人的一致性：不仅诉求指向同一点，连措辞都高度雷同。托克维尔的意思是，这不是预先串通的结果，也并非组织化…