按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
overthrow of his country may be punished； as a political parricide；
even with death。 It is the duty of the people to bear any abuse of the
supreme power； even then though it should be considered to be
unbearable。 And the reason is that any resistance of the highest
legislative authority can never but be contrary to the law； and must
even be regarded as tending to destroy the whole legal constitution。
In order to be entitled to offer such resistance； a public law would
be required to permit it。 But the supreme legislation would by such
a law cease to be supreme； and the people as subjects would be made
sovereign over that to which they are subject； which is a
contradiction。 And the contradiction becomes more apparent when the
question is put： 〃Who is to be the judge in a controversy between
the people and the sovereign？〃 For the people and the sovereign are to
be constitutionally or juridically regarded as two different moral
persons； but the question shows that the people would then have to
be the judge in their own cause。
The dethronement of a monarch may be also conceived as a voluntary
abdication of the crown； and a resignation of his power into the hands
of the people； or it might be a deliberate surrender of these
without any assault on the royal person； in order that the monarch may
be relegated into private life。 But； however it happen； forcible
compulsion of it； on the part of the people； cannot be justified under
the pretext of a right of necessity （casus necessitatis）； and least of
all can the slightest right be shown for punishing the sovereign on
the ground of previous maladministration。 For all that has been
already done in the quality of a sovereign must be regarded as done
outwardly by right； and； considered as the source of the laws； the
sovereign himself can do no wrong。 Of all the abominations in the
overthrow of a state by revolution； even the murder or assassination
of the monarch is not the worst。 For that may be done by the people
out of fear； lest； if he is allowed to live； he may again acquire
power and inflict punishment upon them； and so it may be done； not
as an act of punitive justice； but merely from regard to
self…preservation。 It is the formal execution of a monarch that
horrifies a soul filled with ideas of human right； and this feeling
occurs again and again as of as the mind realizes the scenes that
terminated the fate of Charles I or Louis XVI。 Now how is this feeling
to be explained？ It is not a mere aesthetic feeling； arising from
the working of the imagination； nor from sympathy； produced by
fancying ourselves in the place of the sufferer。 On the contrary； it
is a moral feeling arising from the entire subversion of all our
notions of right。 Regicide； in short； is regarded as a crime which
always remains such and can never be expiated （crimen immortale；
inexpiabile）； and it appears to resemble that sin which the
theologians declare can neither be forgiven in this world nor in the
next。 The explanation of this phenomenon in the human mind appears
to be furnished by the following reflections upon it； and they even
shed some light upon the principles of political right。
Every transgression of a law only can and must be explained as
arising from a maxim of the transgressor making such wrong…doing his
rule of action； for were it not committed by him as a free being； it
could not be imputed to him。 But it is absolutely impossible to
explain how any rational individual forms such a maxim against the
clear prohibition of the law…giving reason； for it is only events
which happen according to the mechanical laws of nature that are
capable of explanation。 Now a transgressor or criminal may commit
his wrong…doing either according to the maxim of a rule supposed to be
valid objectively and universally； or only as an exception from the
rule by dispensing with its obligation for the occasion。 In the latter
case； he only diverges from the law； although intentionally。 He may；
at the same time； abhor his own transgression； and without formally
renouncing his obedience to the law only wish to avoid it。 In the
former case； however； he rejects the authority of the law itself；
the validity of which； however； he cannot repudiate before his own
reason； even while he makes it his rule to act against it。 His maxim
is； therefore； not merely defective as being negatively contrary to
the law； but it is even positively illegal； as being diametrically
contrary and in hostile opposition to it。 So far as we can see into
and understand the relation； it would appear as if it were
impossible for men to commit wrongs and crimes of a wholly useless
form of wickedness； and yet the idea of such extreme perversity cannot
be overlooked in a system of moral philosophy。
There is thus a feeling of horror at the thought of the formal
execution of a monarch by his people。 And the reason it is that；
whereas an act of assassination must be considered as only an
exception from the rule which has been constituted a maxim； such an
execution must be regarded as a complete perversion of the
principles that should regulate the relation between a sovereign and
his people。 For it makes the people； who owe their constitutional
existence to the legislation that issued from the sovereign； to be the
ruler over him。 Hence mere violence is thus elevated with bold brow；
and as it were by principle； above the holiest right； and； appearing
like an abyss to swallow up everything without recall； it seems like
suicide committed by the state upon itself and a crime that is capable
of no atonement。 There is therefore reason to assume that the
consent that is accorded to such executions is not really based upon a
supposed principle of right； but only springs from fear of the
vengeance that would be taken upon the people were the same power to
revive again in the state。 And hence it may be held that the
formalities accompanying them have only been put forward in order to
give these deeds a look of punishment from the accompaniment of a
judicial process； such as could not go along with a mere murder or
assassination。 But such a cloaking of the deed entirely fails of its
purpose； because this pretension on the part of the people is even
worse than murder itself； as it implies a principle which would
necessarily make the restoration of a state； when once overthrown；
an impossibility。
An alteration of the still defective constitution of the state may
sometimes be quite necessary。 But all such changes ought only to
proceed from the sovereign power in the way of reform； and are not
to be brought about by the people in the way of revolution； and when
they take place； they should only effect the executive； and not the
legislative； power。 A political constitution which is so modified that
the people by their representatives in parliament can legally resist
the executive power； and its representative minister； is called a
limited constitution。 Yet even under such a constitution there is no
right of active resistance； as by an arbitrary combination of the
people to coerce the government into a certain active procedure； for
this would be to assume to perform an act of the executive itself。 All
that can rightly be allowed； is only a negative resistance；
amounting to an act of refusal on the part of the people to concede
all the demands which the executive may deem it necessary to make in
behoof of the political administration。 And if this right were never
exercised； it would be a sure sign that the people were corrupted；
their representatives venal； the supreme head of the government
despotic； and his ministers practically betrayers of the people。
Further； when on the success of a revolution a new constitution
has been founded； the unlawfulness of its beginning and of its
institution cannot release the subjects from the obligation of
adapting themselves； as good citizens； to the new order of things； and
they are n