What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government

OSITION OF THE ID

DETERMINATION O

NT AND O

thoughts, yet we know not how to reach it. Who will explain this profound antagonism between our conscience and our will?

undertake the task,

s violated justice, it is necess

T F

al Sense in Man

lishness before resolving upon the only course possible for them to take,-observation. It was reserved for an unpretending savant-who perhaps did not pride himself on his philosophy-to put

one has proposed

AL SENSE AND THAT OF THE BRUTE A DI

would have branded the immoral paradox! "Conscience,"-they would have cried,-"conscience, man's chief glory, was given to him exclusively; the notion of justice and injustice, of merit and demerit, is his noble privilege; to man, alone,-the lord of creation,-belongs the sublime po

do not except even M. de Bonald's celebrated definition,-MAN IS AN INTELLECT SERVED BY ORGANS-a definition which has the double fault

f relationships; in short, system. Now, all systems exist only on certai

men with respect to eac

nce, the dictum of reason, the inspiration of sentiment, the penchant of feeling; it is the love of self in others; it is enlightened self-interest; or else it is an innate idea, the imperative command of applied reason, which has its source in the concepts of pure reason;

he object of the legislator"-says M. Ch. Comte in his "Treatise on Legislation"-"cannot be overthrown. But legislation is advanced no

To practise justice is to obey the social instinct; to do an act of justice is to do a social act. If, then, we watch the conduct of men towards each other un

h the simplest and

is in society with him-she is a good mother. She, on the contrary, who abandons her child, is unfait

, I am his brother, his associate; if, instead of a

only in respect to the amount which he shares with him. Whoever takes by force or stratagem

orts him, and supplies him with money, thereby declares himself his associate-his neigh

, by a secret sympathy which causes him to love, congratulate, and condole; s

invite each other), to share their prey; in danger they aid, protect, and warn each other. The elephant knows how to help his companion out of the ditch into which the latter has fallen. Cows form a circle, with their horns outward and their calves in the centre, in order to repel the attacks of wolves. Horses and pigs, on hearing a cry of distress from one of their number, rush to the spot whence it comes. What descriptions I might

seems better able to endure isolation. In man, social needs are more imperative and complex; in the beast, they seem less intense, less diversified, less regretted. Soci

of charity, justice, and devotion, he does not perceive that in so acting he simply obeys an instinct wholly animal in its nature. As we are good, loving, tender, just, so we are passionate

etween us two-handed bipeds and o

ious of our social faculty, while the animals are unconscious of theirs-in the fact that while we

which we call JUSTICE. It is our reason which teaches us that the selfish man, the robber, the murderer-in a word, the traitor to society-sins against Nature, and is guilty with respect to others and himself, when he does wrong wilfully.

of external phenomena, which we acquire, has no influence upon their causes and laws, so reflection, by illuminating our instinct, enlightens us as to our sentient nature, but does not alter its character; it tells us what our morality is, but neither changes nor modifies it. Our dissatisfaction with ourselves after doing wrong, the indignation which we feel at the sight of injustice, the idea of deserved punishment and due remuner

and second degre

e just pointed out, as one of the m

ety of animals of its species, seeks companionship in its solitude. This fundamental characteristic of the social instinct renders intolerable and even hateful the friendship of frivolous persons, liable to be infatuated with every new face, accommodating to all whether good or bad, and ready to sacrifice, for a passing liaison, the oldest and most honorable affections. The fault of such beings is n

lone can form an exact idea of it; but our idea, as has been said already, does not change its nature. We shall soon see how man rises to a third degree of sociability which the animals are incapable

, I see a man struggling with the waves, am I bound to go to his assistance? Yes, I

nd to share with

it; possession can become exclusive only when permission to occupy is granted to all alike. That which in this instance obscures our duty is our power of foresight, which, causing us to fear an eventual danger, impels us to usurpation, and makes u

own advantage; better that God should deprive us of pru

ee again, and who, perhaps, will reward me with ingratitude? If we had earned this bread together, if this man had done something to obtain it, he might dema

e supposition, that each producer is not nece

e profits and losses are divided between them; since each produces, not for himself, but for the society: when the time of distribution arrives, it is not the producer who is considered, but the associate. That is why the slave, to whom the planter gives straw and rice; and the civilized laborer, to whom the capitalist pays a salary which is always too small,-not being associated with their employers, al

iple of exchange combine to associate us. There is but a single exception to this rule,-that of the proprietor, who, producing by his right of increase, is not associated with any one, and consequently is not obliged to share his product with any one; just as no

e absence of equality; equality is its sine qua non. So that, in all matters which concern this associa

the reader has sufficient insight to ena

an equal right of possession; nor will he be unjust, if, wishing to change his location, he exchanges this field for an equivalent. But if,

more than others-the products of society, should be proceeded against as a thief and a parasite. We owe it to

egory of the understanding, is justice placed? In the category of equal quantities. Hence, the ancient definition of justice-Justum aequale est, injustum inaequale. What is it, then, t

ch laborer's share as fast as new laborers present themselves. This right disappears if the

ne's share of wealth by fulfilling the required conditi

sentiment; but this opinion is logically and chronologically false. But justice, by its composition hybrid-if I may use the term,-justice, born of emotion and intellect combined, seems to me one of the strongest proofs

f property; for, since property can be defended only as a just and social institution, and property being inequality, in order to prove that property is in harmony with society, it must be shown that injustice is justice, and that inequality is equality,-a contradiction in terms. On the other ha

the same justice; all are equal. Does it follow tha

man in peril, I being in a position to help him. Now, I suppose

ause within universal society there exist for each of us as many special societies as there are individuals; and we are bound, by the principle of sociability itself, to fulfil the obligations which these impose

he should favor his friend's injustice, he would become his accomplice in his violation of the social compact; he would form with him a sort of conspiracy against the social body. Preference should be shown only in personal matters, such as love, esteem, confidence, or intimac

inside of the main body-gives the key to all the problems which arise from the opposition and conf

metimes for individual assistance, it consists more in prevention than in action. A sick animal who cannot arise from the ground, or an imprudent one who has fallen over a precipice, r

o the animals. They have friendships of habit and of choice; friendships neighborly, and friendships parental. In comparison with us, they have feeble memories, sluggish feelings, a

, on the contrary, starting with the principle that society implies equality, can, by our reasoning faculty, understand and agree with each other in settling our rights; we have even used our judgment to a great extent. But in all this our conscience plays a small part, as is proved by the fact that the idea of RIGHT-of which we catch a glimpse in certain animals who approach nearer than any others to our standard of intelligence-seems to grow, from the low level at which it stands in savages, to the lofty height which it reaches in a Plato

ve thus far observed, occur among beasts as well as men. We know the meaning of justice; in other words, of so

hird degree o

en one faculty and another in the same individual, there is an infinite difference. This difference of degree in the same faculties, this predominance of talent in certain directions, is, we have said, the very foundation of our society. Intelligence and natural genius have been distributed by Nature so economically, and yet so liberally, that in society there is no danger of either a surplus or a scarcity of special ta

e not the result of instinct) in intensity. Each one does as well as all the others what all the others do; provides his food, avoids the enemy, burrows

r, but never penetrate each other. Man continually exchanges with man ideas and feelings, products and services. Every discovery and act in society is necessary to him. But of this immense quantity of products and idea

e same instinct which associates animal with animal; but man is associated differently from the

, industry, and capacity. But, although equality of conditions is a necessary consequence of natural right, of liberty, of the laws of production, of the capacity of physical nature, and of the principle of society itself,-it does not prevent the social sentim

persons. In the strong, it becomes the pleasure of generosity; among equals, fra

nd greatness; and it is this voluntary reverence which he pays to humanity, this avowal that he is but an instrument of Nature,-who is alone worthy of glory and worship,-it is, I say, this simultaneous confession of the heart and the mind, this genuine adoration of the Great Being, that distinguishes and elevates man, and lifts him to a de

elf-sacrifice

e multitude the antistrophe. Burdened with painful and disagreeable tasks, but rendered omnipotent by their number and the harmonic arrangement of their func

eople with adorat

the daughter of equality. O my friends! may I live in your midst without emulation, and without glory; let equality

us to the hearts of

uperadds esteem, and thereby forms in man a third degree of sociability. Equite makes it at once our duty and our pleasure to aid the weak who have need of us, and to make them our equals; to pay to the strong a just tribute of gratitude and honor, without enslaving ourselves to them; to cherish our

ution of social sympat

each other, and show their preferences, but who cannot conceive of es

ve; which sees, but does not feel. As justice is the product of social instinct and reflection combined,

e of association; in which inequality, or rather the divergence of faculties, and the specia

ith the same eye the marvels of art, and the products of the rudest industry, excites unutterable contempt

ctive faculty which leads us into communication with our fellows, and whose physical manife

f sociability support

e first, I do not esteem his talent as I ought; if, in society, I award more to myself than to my associate, we are not really associated. Justice is sociability as ma

ral inferences

ust always take precedence of it. The woman honored by the ancients, who, when forced by a tyrant to choose between the death of her brother and that of her husband, sacrificed the latter on the ground that she could find another husband but not an

law on the ground of inequality of talents; because the just dist

ciated with his father in business, is more capable than any one else of carrying it on; and that the citizen, who is surprised in the midst of his task by death, is best fitted, in consequence of his natural taste for his occupation, to designate his su

metical equality, Thersites would be entitled to as much as Achilles, which would be unjust in the extreme. To avoid this injustice, the worth of the persons should be estimated, and the spoils divided accordingly. Suppose that the worth of Achilles is double that of Ajax:

associated, are themselves in the service of Agamemnon who pays them, there is no objection to Aristotle's method. The slave-owner, who

he is free; that if Achilles has a strength of four, five could kill him; finally, that in doing personal service he incurs as great a risk as Achilles. The same argument appli

ily equal, except in the degree of esteem and consideration which each one may receive. Out of society,

om our litanies. God can be regarded as just, equitable, and good, only to another God. Now, God has no associate; consequently, he cannot experience social affections,-such as goodness, equite, and justice. Is the shepherd said to be just to his sheep and his dogs? No: and if he saw fit to shear as much wool from a lamb six months old, as from a ram of two years; or, if he required as much work from a young dog as from an o

et to be determined Matrimonial legislation, like ci

omething; nor listen to him unless he proved us mistaken; nor worship him unless he manifested his power. All the laws of our nature, affectional

ver to put himself into immediate communicat

e as much as they consume, reason with their subjects, and do wonderful things. Still more; if, as some pretend, kings are public functionaries, the love which is due them is measur

f talent and labor-the outbursts of love and enthusiasm,-all are regulated in advance by an invariable standard; all depend up

r-deducible; now like the discovery of unknown quantities, induced by the inevitable influence of time. Figures are the providence of history. Undoubtedly there are other elements in human progress; but in the multitude of hidden causes which agitate nations, there is none more powerful or constant, none less obscure, than the periodical explosions of the proletariat against property. Property, acting by exclusion an

y usury, flourishing, nevertheless, as long as the known world furnished its terrible proletaires with LABOR stained with blood by civil war at every interval of rest, and dying of exhaustion when the people lost, together with their former energy, their last spark of moral sense; Carthage, a commercial and financial city, continually divided by internal competiti

ortance than official composure. Equality of conditions is a natural law upon which public economy and jurisprudence are based. The right to labor, and the principle of equal distribution of wealth, cannot give way to the anxieties of power. It is not for the proletaire to reconcile the contradictions of the codes, still less to suffer for the errors of the government. On the contrary, it is the duty of the civil and administrative power

th!" These people mistake for the truth their cherished opinion and ardent conviction, which is usually any thing but the truth. The science of society-like all human sciences-will be for ever incomplete. The depth and variety of the questions which it embraces are infinite. We hardly know the A B C of this science, as is proved by the fact that we have not yet emerged from the period of systems, and have not ceased to put the authority of the majority in the place of facts. A certain philological society decided linguistic questions by a plura

rest contented with the removal of the cover. The mysteries of the sanctuary of iniquity must be unveiled, the tables of the old alliance broken, and all the objects of the ancient faith thrown in a heap to the swine. A charter has been given to us,-a resume of political science, the monu

will not finish this treatise without solving the first problem of

WHAT WILL BE THE FORM OF S

SEC

of our Mistakes. Th

annot be determined until the fo

y has the social instinct, so trustworthy among the animals, erred in th

nfinite variety, give rise to an infinite variety of wills, and that the character, the inclinations, and-if I may venture to use the expression-the form of the ego, are necessarily changed; so that in the order of liberty, as in the order of intelligence, there are as ma

ngular, but always perfectly identical. These personalities do not vary, and we might say that a single ego governs them all. The labors which animals perform, whether alone or in society, are exact reprod

e, the will is constant and uniform, because the instinct which guides it is invariable, and constitutes the animal's whole life and nature. In man, talent varies, and the mind wavers; co

ill others storing the products, and superintending their distribution. Each one, without inquiring as to the object of his labor, and without troubling himself about the extent of his task, would obey orders, bring his product, receive his salary, and would then rest for a time; keeping meanwhile no accounts, envious of nobody, and satisfied with the distributor, who never w

ing himself right, persists in them. He is wedded to his opinions; he esteems himself, and despises others. Consequently, he isolates himself; for he could not submit to the majority without renouncing his will and his reason,-that is, without dis

uare. All sorts of systems and inventions would be tried, until long experience, aided by geometry, should show them that the hexagonal shape is the best. Then insurrections would occur. The drones would be told to provide for themselves, and the queens to labor; jealousy would spread among the la

re under the control of his reasoning faculty, at first he reflects but little, and reasons inaccurately; then, benefiting by his mistakes, he rectifies his ideas, and perfects his reason. In the first place, it is the savage sacrificing all his possessions for a trinket, and then repenting and weeping; it is Esau selling his birthright for a mess of pottage, and afterwards wishing to cancel the bargain; it is the civilized workman laboring in insecurity, and continually demanding tha

d the appropriation which results from it. On the other hand, man always needs a market for his products; unable to compare values of different kinds, he is satisfied to judge approximately, according to his passion and caprice; and he engages in d

scovered and diffused, will sooner or later put an end t

ransformation of our spontaneous perceptions into deliberate knowledge, does not take

og and the horse, who understand the meaning of several of our words, and who obey us,-thereby show intelligence. The dog who hides the remains of his dinner, the bee who constructs his cell, the bird who builds his nest, act only from instinct. Even man has instincts: it is a special instinct which l

h influence their actions in the same manner that ordinary and accidental sensations commonly do. It is a sort of dream, or vision, which al

inguishing characteristic of the latter? According to F. Cuvier, it is REFLECTION OR THE POWER OF INTELLECTUALL

f has proved by numerous examples. But notice that the learned observer defines the kind of reflection which distinguishes us from the animals as the POWER O

every day becoming social by reflection and choice. At first, he formed his words by instinct; [*] he was a poet by inspiration: to-day, he makes grammar a science, and poetry an art. His conception of God and a future life is spontaneous and instinctive, and his expressions of this conception have been, by turns, monstrous, eccentr

rigin of language is so

r between instinct and

arbitrary, or convent

d to us by God. Languag

n of man, as the hive

hat language is not the

nd. Further, the mecha

nious when it is not re

s one of the most curio

See, among other works

839), in which the lear

orn of sensation; how

of development; why ma

y of creating a langua

elops; and that the stu

ct, a science. France

rst rank, endowed with

dest savants developing

blic; devoting themselv

upon, and seeming to

s see

ndifference to religious matters, and the ridicule heaped upon religious customs. Man esteems only the products of reflection and of reason. The most wonderful works of instinct are, in his eyes, only lu

n account of his experience, and preserves the record; so that the race, as well as the individual, becomes more and

like the animals, instinct were his only guide. But the Creator has endowed us with reflection, to the end that our instinct might become intelligence; and since this reflection and resulting knowledge pass through various stages, it happens that in the beginning our instinct is opposed, rather than guided, by reflection; consequently

flection; good, or truth, must inevitably be the second child. Or, to again employ the figure, evil is the product of

ontaneous movement by which it manifests and establishes itself. It is the first phase of human civilization. In this state of society,-which the jurists have called NEGATIVE COMMUNISM-man draws near to man, and shares with him the fruits of the field and the milk and flesh of animals. Little by little this communism-negative as long as man does not produ

covered the third term, the SYNTHESIS, we shall have the required solution. Now, this synthesis necessarily results from the correction of the thesis by the antithesis. Therefore it is necessar

tics of Communis

loy much eloquence to thoroughly disgust men with it. The irreparability of the injustice which it causes, the violence which it does to attractions and repulsions, the yoke of iron which it fastens upon the will, the moral torture to which it subjects the conscience

he did not think equality of conditions possible. The communities of the early Church did not last the first century out, and soon degenerated into monasteries. In those of the Jesuits of Paraguay, the condition of the blacks is said by all travellers to be as miserable as that of slaves; and it is a fact that the good Fathers were obliged to surround themselves with ditches a

property-is conceived under the direct influence of the proprieta

idelity to regulations, which are always defective, however wise they may be thought, allows of no complaint. Life, talent, and all the human faculties are the property of the State, which has the right to use them as it pleases for the common good. Private associations are sternly prohibited, in spite of the likes and dislikes of different natures, because to tolerate them would be to introduce small communities within the large one, an

orce; force of events, chance, FORTUNE; force of accumulated property, &c. In communism, inequality springs from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence. This damaging equation is repellent to the conscience, and causes merit to complain; for, although it may be the duty of t

ecessity, to choose his friendships, his recreation, and his discipline; to act from judgment, not by command; to sacrifice himself through selfishness, not through servile obligation. Communism is essentially opposed to the free exercise of our faculties, to our noblest

of thought and action; the second, by placing labor and laziness, skill and stupidity, and even vice and virtue on an equality in point of comf

espotism. The former effect of property having been sufficiently developed in the last three chapters,

, which is derived from {GREEK i }, Latin lateo, I conceal myself. The Greeks have also {GREEK ncg }, from {GREEK ncg }, I filch, whose radical consonants are the same as those of {GREEK ' c

Eighth Commandment), thou shalt not steal,-that is, thou shalt not hold back, thou shalt not put away any thing for thyself. That is the act of a m

all the tricks in a game of ombre; so that le voleur, the robber, is the capitalist who takes all, who gets the lion's share. Probably this verb

tinguished and classified by legislators according to their heinousness or m

or scaling walls; 4. By abstraction; 5. By fraudulent bankruptcy; 6. By forgery of the han

ll robbers who practise

d open fraud. Bandits,

names were gloried in b

n as noble as it was lu

s; Jephthah, David, Ca

endants; Robert Guiscard

he Norman heroes,-were

robber is expressed in t

ce to A

armis," 27and by this sentence from the d

, and the Christians to

ay, the robber-the war

vigor. His profession,

us and corporal penalti

sad change in op

swindling; 10. By abuse of tru

ect the caprice of Fortune by dexterous jugglery. To-day even, and in all countries, it is thought a mark of merit among peasants, merchants, and shopkeepers to KNOW HOW TO MAKE A BARGAIN,-that is, to deceive one's man. This is so universally accepted, that the cheated party takes no offence. It is known with what reluctance our government resolved upon the abolition of lotteries. It felt that it was dealing a stab thereby at property

he law of being mater

-12. By

, it is true, upon a loan, but in the way of exchange or discount,-that is, of sale), is protected by royal privilege. But the distinction between the banker and the usurer is a purely nominal one. Like the usurer, who lends on property, real or personal, the banker lends on business paper; like the usurer, he takes his interest in advance; like the usurer, he can recover from the borrower if the property is destroyed (that is, if the note is not redeemed),-a circumstance which makes him a money-lender, not a money-seller. But the

Salmasius, having assimilated interest to rent, was REFUTED by Grotius, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, Wolf, and Heineccius; and, what is more curious still, Salmasius ADMITTED HIS ERROR. Instead of inferring from this doctrine of Salmasius that all increase is illegitimate, and proceeding straight on to the demonstration of Gospel equality, the

ure, the fathers, traditions, councils, and popes, that property exists by Divine right, while usury

rent, house-rent, an

to justify this kind of usury. Pascal and all the Jansenists laughed at him. But what would the satirical Pascal, the learned Nicole, and the invincible Arnaud have said, if Father Antoine Escobar de Valladolid had answered them thus: "A lease is a contract by which real estate is bought, at a high price and on credit, to be again sold, at the expiration of a certain time, to the sam

talte would have sounded the tocsin, and would have shouted that soci

the profit of the merchant e

OF SELLING FOR SIX THAT WHICH IS WORTH THREE. Between commerce thus defined and vol a l'americaine, the o

r product, by accepting sinecures,

by the State, and who through the intervention of a bookseller sells them to the public a second time, robs; the sinecurist, who receives an enormous product in exchange for his vanity, robs; the functionary, t

apitul

he idea of merit; equite suggests the plan of proportioning not only esteem, but also material comforts, to personal merit; and since the highest and almost the only merit then recognized is physical strength, the strongest, {GREEK '

e right of the strongest, which Socrates, the advocate of equality, {GREEK g e }, seriously refutes. It is related of the great Pompey, that he blushed easily, and, nevertheless, these words once escaped his lips: "Why should I re

r the tribute levied upon the conquered by the conqueror; and the whole numerous family of t

pt according to the letter rather than the spirit: Uti lingua nuncupassit, ita jus esto,-"As the tongue has spoken, so must the right be," says the law of the Twelve Tables. Artifice, or rather perfidy, was the main element in the politics of ancient Rome. Among other examples, Vico cites the following, also quoted by Montesquieu: The Romans had guaranteed to the Carthaginians the preservation of their goods and their CITY,-intentionally

etensions which are honored with the beautiful names of TALENT and GENIUS, but which ought to be r

employed alone and undisguised; in the authorized forms, they conceal themse

et got rid of that kind of robbery which acts through talent, labor, and possession, and which is

it. The ignorance of councils and popes upon all questions of morality is equal to that of the market-place and the money-changers; and it is this utter ignorance of right, justice, and society, which is killing the Church, and discrediting its teachings for ever. The infidelity of the Roman church and other Christian churches is flagrant; all have disregarded the precept of Jesus; all h

heretics and orthodox-Protestants and Papists-cannot reproach each other. All have strayed from the

rrower and narrower limits. Hitherto the victories of justice over injustice, and of equality over inequality, have been won by instinct and the simple force of things; but the final triumph of

parably connected with the idea of legitimate authority, in explaining t

future? hear some of my younger readers re

a; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs-no matter un

stitutionalist?"-"God forbid!"-"You are then an aristocrat?"-"Not at all."-"You w

eans. I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although

ir obedience to the old," who are strong; and from habit, which is a kind of conscienc

order may be disturbed by violent outbreaks. Then the authority passes to another; and, having been re-established by force, it is again maintained by h

associate: he soon becomes their chief, in consequence of his superior intelligence. He does not, then, change the NATURAL CONDITION of these animals, as Buffon has said. On the contrary, he uses this natural condition to his own advantage; in other words, he finds SOCIABLE animals, and render

is lead, to reproduce their kind, to take to flight, or to defend themselves. Concerning each of these particulars, his subordinates are as well informed as he. But it is the chief who, by his accumulated experience, provides against accidents;

ly of a reflective and intellectual nature. The human race-like all other races of sociable animals-has its instincts, its innate faculties, its general ideas, and its categories of sentiment and reason. It

of government. Perceiving that, in the remotest ages, crowns and kingships were worn by heroes, brigands, and knight-errants, they confound the two things,-royalty and despotism. But royalty dates from the creation of man; it existed in the age of negative communism. Ancient heroism (and

cted it with the gods, from whom they said the first kings descended. This notion was the origin of the divine genealogies of royal families, the i

cities built, each function was, like every thing else, appropriated, and hereditary kingships and priesthoods were the result. The principle of heredity was carried into even the most ordinary professions,-a circumstance which led to class distincti

have been execrable kings, and very tolerable tyrants. Royalty may always be good, when it is the only possible form of government; legitimate it is never. Neither heredity, nor election, nor universal suffrage, nor the excell

s, to discover it by his powers of reflection and reason,-man reasons upon the commands of his chiefs. Now, such reasoning as that is a protest against authority,-a beginning of disobedience. At the moment that man inquires into the motives which govern the will of his sovereign,-at that moment man revolts. If he obeys no longer because the king commands, but because the king dem

of kings is immense, no knowledge having been acquired with which to contradict it. But, little by little, experience produces habits, which develop into customs; then the customs are formulated in maxims, laid down as principles,-in short, transformed into laws, to which the king, the living law, has to bow. There comes a time

ively, and, as it were, unconsciously;

the system of society? But, having reached this height, he comprehends that political truth, or the science of politics, exists quite independently of the will of sovereigns, the opinion of majorities, and popular beliefs,-that kings, ministers, magistrates, and nations, as wills, have no connection with the science, and are worthy of no consideration. He comprehends, at the same time, that, i

al desire for a true government,-that is, for a scientific government. And just as the right of force and the right of artifice retreat before the steady advance of justice, and must finally be extinguished in equality, so the sovereignty of th

our prejudice. As long as we live, we want a chief or chiefs; and at this very moment I hold in my hand a brochure, whose author-a zealous communist-dreams, like a second Marat, of the dictatorship. The most advanced among us are those who wish the greatest possible number of sovereigns,-their most ardent wish is for the royalty of the National Guard. Soon, undoubtedly, some one, jealous of the citizen militia, will say, "Everybody is king." But, when he has spoken, I will say, in my turn, "Nobody is king; we are, whether we will or no, ass

any power whatever the right of veto or of sanction, is the last degree of tyranny. Justice and legality are two things as independent of our approval as is mathematical truth. To compel,

ut himself. That the truth which he proclaims may become a law, it must be recognized. Now, what is it to recognize a law? It is to verify a mathematical or a met

must, if I reason correctly, meet with paradoxes at every step, and must end with paradoxes. For the rest, I do not see how the liberty of citizens would be endangered by entrusting to their hands,

he legislative and the executive power at once. Accordingly, the substitution of the scientific and true law for the royal will is accomplished only by a terrible struggle; and this consta

he right to USE and ABUSE. If, then, government is economy,-if its object is production and consumption, and the distribution of labor and products,-how is government possible while property exists? And if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be king

f the third form of

onomy, no administration, is poss

overeignty of the reason, and the sense of personal merit

ality, becomes tyrannical and unjust. Property, by its despotism

ause both are exclusive, and each disregards two elements of society. Communism re

these four principles,-equality, law, in

not in EQUALITY OF COMFORT,-which it is the business of the laborers to achieve fo

f facts, and consequently based upon necess

te reason, originating in the difference in talents and capac

intelligence and sentiment, and not as regards material object

synthesis of communism and pro

icism. We search by analysis for those elements in each which are true, and in harmony with the laws of Nature and society, disregar

exists only in society; and in the ab

it the government of the will, but only the

because it respects all wills

llows the utmost latitude to the ambitio

ur principle is true; it is good, it is socia

rinciple and regulator of all our actions. This is the universal motor, which philosophy is searching for, which religion strengthens, which egotism supplants, and whose place pu

hose things which are necessary to rest and nourishmen

to live. To do so is bot

support them. It is our right to be loved in preference to all others.

equivalents; and since we consume before we produce, it would be our duty, if we could control the matter

es of our reason. It is our right to maintain our

It is our duty to deserve their praise.

uality. "Choose," it tells us, "between two legacies, but do not take them both." All our legislation concerning tr

equality, emulation consists in accomplishing under like con

th it. Justice alone suffices to maintain the social equilibrium. Self-sacrifice is a

ture of the products, the character and natural talents of the inhabitants, &c., in proportions so just, so wise, so harmonious, that in no place shall there ever be either an excess or a lack of population, consumption, and products. There commences the science of public and

he germ of death to property; there, sooner or later, privilege and servitude will disappear, and the despotism of will will give place to th

society. Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modificat

, possession varies with the number of pos

the same for all, property is

e, all property becomes, in consequence, collective and

ated capital, and a collective property, inequality of wages and fortunes (on

f the products exchanged. Now, value being expressed by the amount of time and outlay which each product

nce of products, profit is impossible and unjust. Observe this elementary principle of econo

ociated by choice. Therefore, equality of conditions is demanded by justice; that is, by strict social law:

equality in the means of production and equivalence in exchanges-

man (under whatever name it be disguised) is oppression. Society

u, and if you have the interests of humanity at heart, have the courage to espouse the cause of liberty! Cast off your old selfishness, and plunge into the rising flood of popular equality! There your regenerate soul will acquire new life and vigor; your enervated genius will recover unconquerable energy; and your heart, perhaps already withered,

hose labor has always been fruitless, and whose rest has been without hope,-take courage! your

h the work. Thou knowest whether I seek my welfare or Thy glory, O God of liberty! Ah! perish my memory, and let humanity be free! Let me see from my obscurity the people at last instructed; let noble teachers enlighten them; let generous spirits guide them! Abridge, if possible, the time of our trial; stifle pride and avarice in equality; annihilate this love of glory which enslaves us; teach these poor children that in the bosom of liberty there are neither heroes

FIRST

OPERTY? SE

R TO M.

ND M

April 1

SIE

te, no one would be allowed to attack the external form of the society, and the groundwork of its institutions, until he had established his right to do so,-first, by his morality; second, by his capacity; and, third, by the purity of his in

sentiments and thoughts. I have used, in all its fulness, and concerning an important question, the right which the charter grants us. I come to-day, sir, to submit my conscience to your judgment, and my feeble insight to your discriminating reason. You have criticised in a kindly spirit-I had almost said with partiality for the writer-a work whic

EIR CONDITIONS,-such is the thesis which I maintained and developed in a memoir bearing th

e reign of Astrea. A year ago, however, this idea received a scientific demonstration, which has not yet been satisfactorily answered, and, permit me to add, never will be. This demonstration, owing to its slightly impassioned style, its method of reasoning,-which was so at variance with that employed by the generally recognized authorities,-and the importance and novelty of its conclusions, was of a nature to caus

blicly denounced, others found in them simply the solution of the fundamental problems of society; a few even basing evil speculations upon the new light which they had obtained. It was not

change the law of succession without destroying the principle; to maintain the human personality in a system of absolute association, and to save liberty from the chains of communism; to synthetize the monarchical and democratic forms of government; to reverse the division of powers; to give the executive power to the nation, and to make legislation a positiv

agistrates, our philosophers, our ministers, our professors, and our publicists; examine their methods of dealing with the matter of property; count up with me the restrictions placed upon it every day in the name of the public welfare; measure the breaches already made; estimate those which societ

und of public utility, which everybody favo

rightly-abandoned the project of enlarging the forum out of respect for the rights of the occupants who refused to abdicate. Property is a real right, jus in re,-a right inherent in the thing, and whose principle lies in the external manifestation of man's will. Man leaves his imprint, stamps his character, upon the objects of his handiwork. This plastic force of man, as the modern jurists say, is the seal which, set upon matter, makes it holy. Whoever lays hands upon it, against the proprietor's will, does violence to the latter's personality. And yet, when an administrative committee saw fit to declare that

e, and bears testimony in favor of the right. Very well; but from this exception we will pass to another, from

rietor counts upon with perfect safety, and which owes its value to the tacit promise of the government to pay interest upon it at the established rate, until the fund-holder applies for redemption. For, if the income is liable to diminution, it is less profitable than house-rent or farm-rent, whose rates may rise or fall according to the fluctuations in

ons to it, at the same time that it would insure a just assessment of the land-tax. See! If at the moment of conversion a piece of real estate yields an income of one thousand francs, after the new law takes effect it will yield only six hundred francs. Now, allowing the tax to be an aliquot part-one-fourth for example-of the income derived from each piece of property, it is clear on the one hand that the proprietor would not, in order to lighten his share of the tax, underes

ded as a stepping-stone. This last motive seems the most plausible one; for in spite of the clamors of interested parties, and the flagrant violation of certain rights, the public conscience is boun

he least attention was paid; namely, that, in one way or another, property had to be violated. Did they impose on each industry a proportional tax, so as to preserve a balance in the market? They created a maximum PRICE for each variety of sugar; and, as this maximum PRICE was not the same, they attacked property in two ways,-on the one hand, interfering with the liberty of trade; on the other, disregarding the equality of proprietors. Did they suppress the beet-root by granting an ind

demanded, in behalf of all kinds of credit and in the interest of even the debtors themselves, which would render the expropriation of real estate as prompt, as easy, and as effective as that which follows a commercial protest. The Chamber of Deput

ay of payment arrested credit, and prevented the employment of capital in agricultural enterprises. This cause of distrust no longer existing, capitalists will find new markets, agriculture will rapidly develop, and farmers will be the first to enjoy the benefit of the new law. 3. Finally, it was iniquitous and absurd, t

, you clearly stated, sir, in your

-money; and, finally, by the dishonest practices of usury, to monopolize the land to the profit of a financial aristocracy,-a worthy auxiliary of that industrial feudality whose pernicious influence we begin to feel so bitterly. Thus, little by little, the subordination of the laborer to the idler, the restoration of abolished castes, and the distinction between patrician and plebeian, would be effected; thus, thanks to the new privileges granted to the property of the capitalists, that of the small and intermediate proprietors would gradu

eceived in his hope, and surprised by maturity. For what is there more prompt, more unexpected, more abbreviatory of space and time, than the maturity of an obligation? I address this question to all whom this pitiless Nemesis pursues, and even troubles in their dreams. Now, under the new law, the expropriation of a debtor will be effected a hundred times more rapidly; then, also, spoliation will be a hundred times surer, and the fr

terest on the borrowed capital be less exorbitant? For, after all, it is interest which impoverishes the peasant and leads to his expropriation. That the law may be in harmony with its principle, that it may be truly inspired b

t unanimously to maintain the statutes and privileges of the Bank. Now these privileges, these statutes, this vote of the Chambers, mean simply this,-that the market price of specie, at five or six per cent., is not too high, and that the conditions of exchange, discount, and circulation, which generally doub

etition inevitably leads to a reduction of house and farm-rents, since the surest way to depreciate active capital is to increase its amount. But it is a law of political economy that an increase of production augments the mass of available capital, consequently tends to rai

doubt, prevent the manufacturer from compelling a child to labor more than so many hours a day; but it will not force him to increase the pay of the child, nor that of its father. To-day, in the interest of health, we diminish the subsistence of the poor; to-morrow it will be necessary to protect them by fixing their MINIMUM wages. B

fere between the master and the workman? Because they knew the touchy and jealous nature of property, and, regarding it as the principle of all civilization, felt that to me

E CREATION OF NATIONAL WORKSHOPS! The whole laboring class is agitated: it has its journals, organs, and representatives. To guarantee labor to the workingman, to balance production with sale, to harmonize industrial proprietors, it advocates to-day-as a sovereign remedy-one sole head, one national wardenship, on

ssor of the Conserv

MIGRATION OF LABORERS FROM

eated as well as the proletaire of the city. Reform is needed, then, on farms as well as in factories; and, when the government enters the works

ERATE SALARY, VARYING WITH TIME AND

etor. For, as we have had occasion to remark several times already, the interest of the capitalist-in other words the increase of the idler-tends, on account of the power of labor, the multiplication of products and exchanges, to continually diminish, and, by constant reduction, to disappear. So that, in the society proposed by M. Blanqui, equality would not be realized at fi

oo modestly in my opinion, his Utopia. They would serve only to prove beyond all question that, of all the charlatans o

OF STAGNATION IN ORDINARY INDUSTRIES; AT SUCH TIMES THEY SHOULD B

in the last analysis, by the conversion of private workshops into national workshops. On the other hand, the government will need capital with which to pay its workmen; now, how will this capital be obtained? By taxation. And upon what will the tax be levied

work in a wiser and more effective way. Courage, then, ministers, deputies, economists! make haste to seize this glorious initiative; let the watchwords of equality, uttered from the hei

sessment of taxes, and the making of the laws; which laws, aiming always at the protection of material interests, affect, in a greater or less degree, all questions of taxation or wages. Now the people, instructed long since by their journals, their dramas, 41 and their songs, 42 know to-day that taxation, to be equitably divided, must be graduated, and must be borne mainly by the rich,-that it must be levied upon luxuries, &c. And be sure that the people, onc

he electoral reform is in their eyes only a means; but, when they are silent as to the end, they show either profound ignorance, or useless dissimulation. There should be no secrets or reservations from peoples and powers. He disgraces himself and fails in respect for his fellows, who, in publishing his opinions, employs evasion and cunning. Before the people act, they need to know the whole truth. Unhappy he who shall dare to trifle with them! For

DEVOTION TO THE ESTABLISHED ORDER. The electoral body is a league of those interested in the maintenance of property, against those not interested. There are thousands of documents, even official documents, to prove this, if necess

rds equality. There are, moreover, so many people who denounce the present age, that nothing is ga

phere of equality intoxicates us, considering all that has been said and done during the past ten years!... Do you not see that society is dissolving, that a spirit of infatuation is carrying us away? All these hopes of

charter; that this charter arose from the Revolution of '89; that '89 implies the States-General's right of remonstrance, and the en

tions, plunge into the social depths, and uncover this indestructible leaven of equality wh

weat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." It is more than a duty, it is a mission: "God put

be imagined! But let these two men meet and associate themselves: the second immediately attends to the cooking, takes charge of the household affairs, and sees to the provisions, beds, and clothes; provided the stronger does not abuse his superiority by enslaving and ill-treating his companion, their social condition will be perfectly equal. Thus, through ex

nd wants, and the proprietor, if he wishes to enjoy the new products, will be obliged to reduce his income every day; and since the first products tend rather to depreciate than to rise in value,-in consequence of the continual addition of the new ones, which may be regarded as supplements of the first ones,-it follows that the idle proprietor grows poor as fast as public prosperity increases. "Incomes" (I like to quote you, sir, because it is impossible to g

at proprietors of those varieties of capital which are of primary necessity increase their farm-rents as fast as industry develops, much more careful of their privileges in that respect, than those economis

t of increase. In the first place, the proprietor is obliged to allow the laborer a portion of the product, for without it the laborer could not live. Soon the latter, through the development of his industry, finds a means of regaining the greater portion of that which he gives to the proprietor; so that at last, the

not exist. But as soon as the proprietor becomes a producer,-since he can exchange his special product only with his tenant or his commandite,-sooner or later this tenant, this exploited man, if violence is not done him, will make a profit out of the proprietor, and will oblige him to restore-in the exchange of their respective products-the interest on his capital. So that, bal

y the laws of necessity alone. Proprietors and laborers act only in obedience to their wants. Thus, the exercise of the right of i

TERS is met by the EXPLOITED with the instrument of commerce,-a marvellous invention, denounced at its origin by the

precious stone, or a certain weight of metal, was the real inventor of the Bank. What is a piece of money, in fact? It is a bill of exchange written upon solid and durable material, and carrying with it its own redemption. By this means, oppressed equality was enabled to laugh at the efforts of the proprietors, and the balance of justice was adjusted for the first time in the tradesman's shop. The trap was cunningly set, and accomplished its purpose so thoroughly that in idle hands money became only dissolving wealth, a false symbol, a shadow of riches. An excellent economist and profound philosopher was that miser who took

he jealous proprietor. The banker is at once the most potent creator of wealth, and the main distributor of the products of art and Nature. And yet, by the strangest antinomy, this same banker is the most relentless collector of profits, increase, and usury ever inspired by the demon of property. The importance of the services which he renders leads us to endure, though not without complaint, the taxes which he imposes. Nevertheless, since nothing can avoid its providential mission, since nothing w

es, whom the very mention of this idea fills with indignation. Let, then, these silly aristocrats abolish mercantile societies and insurance companies, which are founded b

, when two or more men form among themselves, by synallagmatic contract, an industrial or an insurance association, they recognize that their interests, formerly isolated by a false spirit of selfishness and independence, are firmly connected by their inner natures, and by the mutuality of their relations. They do not really bind themselves by an act of their private will: they swear to co

e head, that PROPERTY is the principal cause of misery and crime. And, for having arrived at this offensive and anti-proprietary conclusion, I am an abhorred monster; radicals and conservatives alike point me out as a fit subject for prosecution; the academies shower their censures upon me; the most worthy people regard me as mad; and those are excessively tolerant who content themselves with the assertion that I am a fool. Oh, unhappy the w

interesting question of social equilibrium, let me, at least, make known the thoug

ou too highly, moreover, to suspect you of dissimulation. I only mean that the truths which methodical investigation and laborious metaphysical speculation have painfully demonstrated to me, a profound acquaintance with political economy and a long experience reveal to you. While I have reached my belief in equality by long reflection, and almost in spite of my desires, you hold yours, sir, with all the zeal of faith,-with all the spontaneity of genius. That is why your course of lectures at the Conservatory is a perpetual war upon property and inequality of fortunes; that is why your most learned investigations, your most ingenious analyses, and your innumerable observations always conclude in a formula of progress and equality; that is why, finally, you are never

he development of civilization by preventing the specialization of industries; it is the custom-house which enriches a hundred monopolists by impoverishing millions of citizens; it is the custom-house which produces famine in the midst of abundance, which makes labor sterile by prohibiting exchange, and which stifles production in a mortal embrace. It is the custom-house which renders nations jealous of, and

"Place in every department of France such a pr

Syrians, Egyptians, and Turks are free to choose their masters; free to exchange their products with whom they please? Why should Europe get into such a turmoil over this petty Sultan and his old Pasha, if it is only a question whether we or the English shall civilize the Orient,-shall instruct Egypt and Syria

the Holy Alliance formed a league against dauntless and blameless France. Consequently, at the news of this famous treaty, there arose among us a chorus of curses upon the principle of property, which at that time was acting under the hypocritical formulas of the old political system. The last hour of property seemed to have struck by the side of Syria; from the Alps to the ocean, from the Rhine to the Pyrenees, the popul

aristocracies and thrones, must end in equality of rights and fortunes; but the day is not far off when the knowledge of this truth will be as common as that of equality of origin. Already it seems to be understood that the Oriental question is only a question of cus

deputies write a law of literary property by the side of a law which opens a large breach in the custom-house they contradict themselves, indeed, and pull down with one hand what they build up with the other. Without the custom-house, literary property does not exist, and the hopes of our starving authors are frustrated. For, certainly you do not expect, with the good man Fourier, that literary property will exercise itself in China to the profit of a French writer; and that an ode of Lamartine, sold by privi

ses by the will of the sovereign. The smuggler is a gallant man,-a man of spirit, who gaily busies himself in procuring for his neighbor, at a very low price, a jewel, a shawl, or any other object of necessity or luxury, whi

o the horrible exploitation which is carr

nty on exportation promised by the State; then, smuggling this sugar back again, he exported it anew, receiving the bounty on exportation a second time, and so on. Notice, sir, that I do not state this as a fact; I give it only as it is told, not endorsing or even believing it. My sole design is to

merchandise for sale; the actual smuggler risks his liberty, his honor, and his life. If success crowns the enterprise, the courageous servant gets paid for his journey; the profit goes to the coward. If fortune or treachery delivers the instrument of this execrable traffic into the hands of the custom-hou

myself before the public by a general recrimination. But I could not refrain from branding so odious a mode of exploitation, a

olition. 49 To-day there is not an idea, not an opinion, not a sect, which does not dream of muzzling property. None confess it, because none are yet conscious of it; there are too few minds capable of grasping spontaneously this ensemble of causes and effects, of principles and consequences, by which I try to demonstrate the approaching disappearance of property; on the other hand, the ideas that are generally formed of this right are too divergent and too loosely determined

ese forms, their modification and their destruction, are solemn experiences which show us the value of ideas, and gradually eliminate from the infinite variety of customs the absolute, eternal, and immutable truth. Now, we shall see that every political institution tends, necessarily, and on pain of death, to equalize conditions; that every where and always equalit

stice, I did it to the glory of religion. I wanted to provoke a peremptory reply, and to pave the way for Christianity's triumph, in spite of the innumerable attacks of which it is at present the object. I hoped that an apologist would arise forthwith, and, taking his stand upon the Scriptures, the Fathers, the canons, and the councils and constitutions of the Popes, would demonstrate that the church always has maintained the doctrine of equality, and would attr

the poor, and the party of the rich. Hardly escaped from the barbarism of the heroic ages, society was rapidly declining. The proletariat made war upon property, which, in its turn, oppressed the proletariat. What did Lycurgus do? His first m

ainted with the nature and needs of the people, more capable than any one else of appreciating the legitimacy of the obligations which he, in the exercise of his absolute authority, cancelled; who had compared the legislative systems of his time, and whose wisdom a

ch he employed to preserve his republic were suggested to him by false notions of political economy, and by a superficial knowledge of the human heart. Accordingly, property, which

ortunes which they experienced. Against these, however, the laws had taken extraordinary pre

remedy for cupidity, a remedy which would have been the less perilous to Sparta because fortunes there were almost

in equality by rendering wealth useless. How much wiser he would have been if, in accordance with his military discipline, he had organized industry and taught the people to procure by their own labor the things which he tried in vain to dep

Spartans in a degree as intense as might have been expected from their enforced poverty and their inexperience in the arts. Historians have accused Pausanias, Lysander, Agesilaus, and others of having corrupted the morals of their country by the introduction of wealth obtained in war. I

ondemned for having exercised the rights of a free man.... It was one of the principles of Lycurguss, acted upon for several centuries, that free men should not follow lucrative professions.... The women disda

he more easily to the allurements of luxury and Asiatic voluptuousness, being placed entirely at their mercy by their own coarseness. The same thing happened to the Romans, when military success took them out of Italy,-a thing which the author of the prosopopoeia of Fabricius could not explain. It is not the cul

(the poor) preferred the popular form; those of the plain (the middle class), the oligarchs; those by the sea coast, a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. Other dissensions were arising from the inequality of fortune

ses for the upper class, which is exposed always to libellous charges made in hopes of confiscation,-these were the features of the Athenian government which were especially revolting to Aristotle, and which caused him to favor a limited monarchy. Aristotle, if he had lived in our day, would have supported th

ular policy was pursued by all the ancients. After the captivity of Babylon, Nehemiah, the chief of the Jewish nation, abolished debts; Lycurgus abolished debts; Solon abolished debts; the Roman people, after the expulsion of the kings until the accession of the Caesars, struggled with the Senate for the abolition of debts. Afterwards, towards the end of the republic, and long after the establishment of the em

exclusively based upon individual property; so that the socia

s if, instead of a legislator chosen by the people, he had been their greatest enemy. Is it not, indeed, the height of imprudence to grant equality of political rights to men of unequal conditions? If a manufacturer, uniting all his workmen in a joint-stock compan

l act,-the abolition of debts.... He thought he owed it to public peace to make this great sacrifice of acquired right

ssess some and endow others, and then stop there. We must gradually lower the rate of interest, organize industry, associate laborers and their functions, and take a census of the large fortunes, not for the purpose of granting privileges, but that we may effect their redemption by settling a life-annuity upon their proprietors. We must apply on a large scale the principle of collective production, give the S

of the philosophy of history, and the second as the most profound writer upon law and politics. Nevertheless, it could be shown that these two great writers, each of

hich seems to have inspired "Telemachus;" the parallel between Athens and Sparta, drawn twenty times since Bossuet; the description of the character and morals of the ancie

sale, among the citizens. The Senate steadfastly opposed those laws which were damag

by the eloquence of the great orator more than by the clamors of the tribunes, would have viewed the agrarian laws in quite a different light. He then would have understood that the interest of the treasury was only a pretext; that, when the captured lands were put up at auction, the patricians hastened to buy them, in order to profit by the revenues from them,-certain, moreover, that the price paid would come back to them sooner or later, in exchange either for supplies furnished

ives, but that the patricians gave to the plebeians only for cash, and lent to them only at usury, he undoubtedly would have silenced the wily senator, and saved the people from a great imposition. Th

. His monarchical and theological instincts know nothing but a

mptoms for causes; and his depth, which is so much admired, is

ot tempted to ask him what caused those JEALOUSIES?-what inspired the people with that LOVE OF LIBERTY, EXTREME AND INTOLERABLE? It would be useless to reply, The corruption of morals; the disregard for the ancient po

ricians, who had nothing to complain of, opposed every innovation. Wealth always has been conservative. Nevertheless, the people overcame the resistance of the Senate; the electoral right was greatly extended; the privileges of the plebeians were increased,-they had their representatives, their tribunes, and their consuls; but, notwithstanding these reforms, the republic could not be saved. When all political expedients had been exhausted, when civil war had depleted the population, when the Caesars had thrown their bloody mantle over the cancer which was consuming the empire,-inasmuch as accumulated

people less violent, and all classes less corrupt; if... &c.,-perhaps the dignity of the empire might have been preserved, and Rome might have retained the sceptre of the world! That is all that can be gathered from the teachings of Montesquieu. But the truth of history does not lie there; the destinies of the world are not dependent upon such trivial causes.

d,-spirited, witty, and filled with wise observations. He pleases, interests, instructs, but leads to little reflection; he does not conquer by depth of thought; he does not exalt the mind by elevated reason or earnest feeling. In vain should we search his writings for knowledge of antiquity, the character of primitive society, or a description of the heroic ages, whose morals and prejudices lived until the last days of the republic. Vico, pai

rship of the god Terminus,-the guardian of private possession, and one of the most ancient gods of Italy. It was Numa who placed property under the protection of Jupiter; who, in imitation of the Etrurians, wished to make priests of the land-surveyors; who invented a liturgy for cadastral operations, and ceremonies of consecration for the marking of boundaries,-who, in short, made a religion of property. 51 All these fancies would have been more beneficial than dangerous, if the holy king had not forgotten one essential thing; namely, to fix the amount that each citizen could pos

n, and having neither hearth nor home, they were refused the means of subsistence, while the rate of interest was kept at its highest point, &c. For five centuries, the sole policy of the Senate was to evade these just complaints; and, notwithstanding the energy of the tribunes, notwithstanding the eloquence of the Gracchi, the violence of Marius, and the triumph of Caesar, this execrable policy succeeded only too well. The Senate always temporized; the measures proposed by the tribunes might be good, but they were inopportune. It admitted that som

supplied by the victory with the means of buying them. War never enriched the soldier; the extensive plundering has been done always by the generals. The vans of Augereau, and of twenty others, are famous in our armies; but no one ever heard of a private getting rich. Nothing was more common in Rome than charges of peculation, extortion, embezzlement, and brigandage, carried on in the provinces at the head of armies, and in o

were entitled to the enjoyment of only a little pasture-land left to them in common: an utterly unjust state of things, since, in consequence of it, taxation-census-weighed more heavily upon the poor than upon the rich. The patrician, in fact, always exempted hims

. Thus, among the Romans, there was a RIGHT OF PROPERTY and a RIGHT OF POSSESSION regulating the administration of all estates. Now, what did the proletaires wish? That the jus possessionis-the simple right of possession-should be extended to them at the expense, as is evident, not of private property, but of the public domain,-agri publici. The proletaires, in short, demanded that they should be tenants of the land which they had conquered. This demand, the patricia

hich the law refused them,-property. A colony was the reward of a victorious legion. But it was no longer the ager publicus only; it was all Italy that lay at the mercy of

fact. The conspirators were old soldiers of Sylla, who, as a reward for their services, had received from him lands in Cisalpine Gaul, Tuscany, and other parts of the peninsula Less than twenty years had elapsed since these colonists, free of debt, had left the service and commenced farming; and already they were crippled by usury, and almost ruined. The poverty caused by the exactions of creditors was the life of this conspiracy which well-nigh inflamed all Italy, and which, with a worthier chief and fairer means, possibly would have succeeded. In Rome, the mass of the people were favorable to the conspirators-cuncta plebes Catilinae incepta probabat; t

shing a precedent for expeditions against the rich, would perhaps have saved the republic, and given peace to the world. But Rome could not evade her destiny; the end of her expiations had not come. A nation never was known to anticipate its

-Seneca, the teacher of virtue,-levied enormous taxes in the provinces, under the name of usury; and it is something remarkable, that the last defenders of the republic, the proud Pompeys, were all usurious aristocrats, and oppressors of the poor. But the battle of Pharsalus, having killed men only, without

nt about the provinces appropriating lands by artifice and fraud, while lending money and piling up interests upon interests. 54 Why, in the

s accomplishment to the most deplorable and indiscreet policy. If, in the time of Tiberius Gracchus, who wished to limit each citizen's possession of the ager publicus to five hundred acres, the amount of this possession had been fixed at as much as one family could cultivate, and granted on the express condition that the possessor should cultivate it himself

ions upon possessors-was nearer to liberty and equality than any nation has been since. If the Senate had been intelligent and just,-if, at the time of the retreat to the Mons Sacer, instead of the ridiculous farce enacted by Menenius Agrippa, a solemn renunciation of the right to acquire had been made by each citizen on attaining his share of possessions,

dividuals were the sole proprietors of one-half of Roman Africa. In the fifth century, the wealthy families had incomes of no less than two milli

piodorus, and Photius. Under Vespasian and Titus, Pliny, the naturalist, e

ealized the purpose of the Senate's decrees; when they lent at high rates of interest, they took advantage of a legal privilege. "Property," said the lender, "is the right to enjoy even to the extent of abuse, jus utendi et abutendi; that is, the right to lend at interest,-to lease, to acquire, and then to lease and lend again." But

public,-the patricians and the plebeians,-dissensions which gave rise to civil wars, proscriptions, and loss of liberty, and finall

everal times already, and which has recently received a

to feed and amuse the people, that they might forget their misery. Panem et circenses: that was the Ro

he time of Caesar, three hundred and twenty thousand people were thus fed. Augustus saw that such a measure led directly to the d

r shrank at

impossible. Tillage gave way to pasturage, an

n fled to the towns. Husbandry disappeared almost entirely, and with husbandry the husbandman. Africa furnished the wheat, and Greece the wine. Tiberius complained bitterly of this evil, which pla

to whoever would cultivate it, besides exempting the farmers from taxation for a period of ten years. Senators were compelled to invest one-third of their fortunes in real estate in Italy; but this measure served only to increase the evil which they wished to cure. To force th

f this memoir is to establish the conformity of my opinion concerning property with that universally held; that, far from aiming at a paradox, it has been my main study to follow the advice of the world; and, finally, that my sole pretension is to clea

evolutions in property

reap. But, when the empire was once invaded, they bethought themselves of sharing the land, just as they shared spoils after a victory. "Hence," says M. Laboulaye, "the expressio

of war than of wealth, more eager to dispose of persons than to appropriate things-it was the warrior who, through superiority of arms, enslaved his adversary. The Roman wanted matter; the Barbarian wanted man. Consequently, in the feudal ages, rents were almost nothing,-simply a hare, a partridge, a pie, a few pints of wine brought by a little girl, or a Maypole set up within the suzerain's reach. In return, the vassal or incumbent had to follow the seignior to battle (a thing which happened almo

urnish products at less than their proper value, will lose his labor. Corporations and masterships, which are hated so bitterly, but which will reappear if we are not careful, are the necessary results o

e made such havoc with the human race. The tenth century, among others, if my memory serves me rightly, was called the CENTURY OF IRON. His property, his life, and the honor of his wife and

essant reiteration of these threats only shows the perseverance of the evil and the impotency of the government. Oppression, moreover, varies but little in its methods. The complaints of the free proprietors, and the groans of the plebeians at the time of the Gracchi, were one and the same. It is said that, whene

ge ones through chicanery, law-suits, and competition? Strategy, violenc

oscillating by virtue of its principle between two opp

al exploitation, it is property only potentially. At its secon

ecame richer and more powerful than they had been under their kings. Sparta was in a strong and prosperous condition during the two or three centuries which followed the death of Lycurgus.

so to speak, grows corrupt, wears itself out-how shall I express

restored the world to a state of natural equality. In the twelfth century, a new spirit pervading all society gave the slave his rights, and through justice breathed new life into the heart of nations. It has been said, and often repeated, that Christianity regenerated the world. That is true; but it seems to me that there is a mistake in the date. Christ

inning to secretly undermine accumulated property, that the in

r, were deeds accomplished by Christianity exclusively. I say Christianity, not ecclesiasticism; for the priests and bishops were themselves large proprietors, and a

ry facts which M. Laboulaye quotes, although t

and to think of our salvation until

cruelty, folly, or cupidity. 'Sell your oxen that are past use,' said Cato, 'sell your calves, your lambs, your wool, your hides, your old ploughs, your old iron, your old slave, and your sick slave, and all

l; "turn off that sick domestic, that toothless and worn-out servant. Put

t that can be said of the goodness of Antoninus is that he prohibited intolerable cruelty,

y and to their poverty, the dearest proteges of religion? Constantine, who embodied in the laws the grand ideas of Christianity, valued the life of a slave as highly as that of a freeman, and declared the maste

ve into a citizen was effected, then, by Christianity before the Barbarians set foot upon the soil of the empire. We have only to trace the progress of this MORAL revolution in the PERSONNEL of society. "But," M. Laboula

ffer from Roman slavery, and whence came t

hat little they know of the industrial arts. The master punishes them when he chooses, kills them with impunity, and sells them and theirs like so many cattle. The slave has no personality, and consequently no wehrgeld 58 peculiar to himself: he is a thing. The wehrgeld belongs to the master a

The man, like the ox and the ass, is a part of the live-stock; a price is set upon his head; he is a tool without

s conditio

, as such, the law of the Visigoths, under the influence of Christian id

laws only. Did the philanthropy of the Visigoths make its first appearance

eturn for which he paid rent and performed service. They were rarely separated from their homes when their land was sold; they and all that th

? For, if the master cannot drive from his domain the slave whom he has once es

irst to recognize the slave's rights of family and pro

ance and carelessness of the seigniors, who busied themselves mainly with wars and battles, paying little or no attention to agriculture, may have been great aids in the emancipation of the serfs, still the vital principle of this emancipation was essentially Christian. Suppose that the Barbarians had remained Pagans in the midst of a Pagan world. As they did not change the Gospel, so they would not have changed the polytheistic customs; slavery would have remained what it was; they would have continued to kill the slaves who we

privilege of being judged by the s

at title did they ob

eir duties we

ions? Who had the autho

rf,-three days, for instance,-and left the res

ich took it upon itself to suspend hostilities and to lighten the duties of the serf

tter? The reply to all these questions, coming from me alone, would be distrusted. The authority of M. Laboulaye shall give credence to my wo

than that of the tenants and serfs. "The expenses of war weighed less heavily upon the serf than upon the freeman; and, as for legal protection, the seigniori

al. The honest tenant-the laborer who earns weekly a moderate but constant salary-is

r hands, and which derived their power from the annihilation of the free classes whom they enlisted in their behalf. As tenants, these men acquired, from generation to generation, sacred rights over the soil which they cultivated

nt of a recognized master daily acting as a proprietor? Let us not disguise matters. As fast as the tenants and the serfs grew rich, they wished to be independent and free; they commenced to associate, unfurl their municipal banners, raise belfries, fortify their

tion of property by the common

, could deprive him of his wife, violate his daughter, pillage his house, and rob him of his savings; religion checked his invasions: it excommunicated the seignior. Religion was the real cause of the ruin of feuda

the exclusion of the nobles,-first, the nobility became poor and degraded, and were forced, in order to live and maintain their credit, to gain admission to the guilds; then, the ordinary subalternization of property leading to inequality of fortunes, to wealth and poverty, to jealousies and hatreds, the cities passed rapidly from the rankest democracy under the yoke of a few ambitious leaders. Such was the fate of most of the Lombardic cities,-Genoa, Florence, Bologn

t as the under vassal had no communication with the king except through the direct

rtunate inhabitants who had not the right of citizenship. Feudalism in unemancipated countries, and oligarchy in the communes, made nearly the same ravages. There were sub-associations, fraternities, tradesmen's associ

ipation had been suspended, when feudalism received its death-blow at the hand of Richelieu. Then liberty halted; the prince of the feudatories held sole and undivided sway. The nobles, the clergy, the commoners, the parliame

; a century and a half had been required to wea

ages, that this recognition of the right of laborers had been the constant aim of the serfs and communes, the secret motive of their efforts. The movement of '89 was only the last stage of that long insurrection. But it seems to me that we have not paid sufficient attention to the fact that the Revolution of 1789, instigated by the same causes,

utions of property, from the days of th

division of the lands of the empire i

ion of the small freeholds into fiefs, feuds, tenures, &c. Large properties, small possessi

rior dependents is broken; the latter becoming freeholders, while the smaller depend

of the serfs towards liberty;

personal right, and of the feudal

n of feudalism in France during

, caste, provinces, and corporations; equalit

nherent in individual property is REMARKE

hanges, the more clearly we see that they were necessary in t

or liberty, should divide the Roman Empire into a multi

an liberty, should submit to their leaders; and, as the freeh

rers, who, by the power of production, and by the division and circulation of wealth, would gradually gain control ove

attended by robbery, poverty, social inequality, and oppression, there should be an inquiry into the cause of this evil, an

ls. The missi dominici were sent into the provinces to maintain the power of the emperors, and to protect the people from the oppressions of the noblemen; and not only did they usurp the imperial power to a great extent, but they dealt more severely with the inhabitants. The freemen became vassals, in order to get rid of military service and court duty; and they were immediately involved in all the personal quarrels of their seigniors, and compell

apitul

lleins, and against the king. 60 What is constitutional government? A conf

e royal authority. How will the bourgeoisie aristocracy en

monarchical unity of Louis XIV. What will be the result of the struggle of the proletariat and the s

IVE, by ONE HUNDRED, or ONE THOUSAND; that is, it remains to be seen, whether the royalty of the barricades intends to maintai

instruments, and its causes. Of course I do not pretend that the principle of property is a complete resume of all the social forces; but, as in that wonderful machine which we call our body, the harmony of the whole allows us to draw a general conclusion from the consideration of a single function or organ, so, in discussing historical causes, I have been able to reason with absolute

the command of God; hasten to finish your journey; turn neither to the right nor the left, but follow the road which lies before you. You seek reason, law, unity, and discipline; but hereafter you can find them only by stripping off the veils of your infancy, and ceasing to follow instinct a

he testimony of nations and ages. We can judge, from what has just been said, how fa

logy, I must examine

ory which defines their elements, and discovers their laws; in short, without a philosophy. Now, the tw

athom without a commission from on high. In applying the facts of history to government, this school does not reason; it does not anticipate; it makes no comparison of the past with the present, in order to predict the future. In its

the manifestations, the incarnations, of the Almighty. The human race, identified with the divine essence, wheels in a circle of ap

here are two schools of jurisprudence, similarly

slator, an expression of his will, a privilege which he condescends to grant,-in short, a g

m of the first, and maintains that law, like literature and religion, is always the expression of society,-i

he absolute, rejects thereby all

her is true; and, united, they do not constitute the truth, since they disregard the absolute, without which there is no truth. They are respectively a THESIS and an ANTITHESIS. There remains to be found, then,

stibly to suspect that the absolute in the science of law is not as chimerical as is commonly supposed; and this

e Institute, begins his "History

regulates the mutual relations of citizens, has undergone several radical changes, and has kept pace in its variations with all the vicissitudes of society. The law of contract, which holds essentially to those principles of eternal jus

of justice, duty; the variable element is property,-that is, the external form of law, the subject-matter of the contract. Whence it follows that the l

possessor;" 62 and, a little farther, "The right of property is not natural, but social. The laws not only protect property: they give it birth," &c. Now, that which the law has ma

st dangerous, most immoral, most tyrannical-in a word, most anti-social-assertion imaginable), it was proper that the right of property should be subjected to a thorough examination, in order to put in eviden

us which characterize the work, the First Memoir on Property passed unnoticed; scarcely would a few communists, having turned its leaves, deign to brand it with their disapprobation. You alone, sir, in spite of the disfavor which I showed for your eco

shall content myself with estimating, from the point of view of this simple and i

of a man over a thing,-a domain which begins by USUCAPTION, is maintained by POSSESSION, and finally, by the aid of PRESCRIPTION, finds its sanction in the civil law; a dom

n be acquired,-tradition, sale, exchange, inheritance, &c.

nized a RIGHT OF PROPERTY and a RIGHT OF POSSESSION-have carefully distinguished between the DOMAIN and the right of USUFRUCT, USE, and HABITATION, which, reduced t

he who no longer labors, but makes another labor in his stead, loses his right to the earnings of the latter. It is by virtue of this principle that the serfs of the middle ages claimed a legal right to property, and consequently to the enjoyment of political rights; that the clergy were despoiled in '89 of their immense estates, and were grant

r; but I do not know that a proprietor was ever deprived of his property because UNWORTHY; and as reasonabl

d of the Roman empire down to the present day. And as if to give a sort of legal sanction to these usurpations, the do

the absurdity of the first-occupant theory. Others have presented themselves, pretending to reconcile the two opinions by uniting them. They have failed, like all the juste-milieux of the world, and are laughed at for their eclecticism.

s, the incredible nonsense, in which the bold defenders of property so lightly involv

of "Le Droit." I tell the gentlemen of "Le Droit" that, in the judgment o

which the classic works of the eighteenth century overflow. To wish to suppress them... is to vi

Troplong makes no reply; what progress is to be hoped for? no reply; what is to be the destiny of property in case of universal association? no reply; what is the absolute and what the continge

deas in the doctrines of modern authors concerning property: witness the works of MM. Toullier and Duranton." The

his being. King of inanimate or unintelligent nature, he feels that he has a right to modify it, govern it, and fit it for

makes a show of using. He says of matter that it is the SUBJECT of property; he should have said the OBJECT. M. Tro

he subject of property, &c." The SUBJECT of property is man; its OBJECT is matter. B

Cicero and Aristotle, and earlier, have maintained that THINGS BELONG TO THE FIRST OCCUPANT, that occupation may be exercised by beings devoid of conscience and personality. The human personality, though it may be the principle or the subject

n regard to the first two terms. As to the third, the condition of property down to this day, for the Gre

seized and occupied participates, so to speak, in the personality of him who holds it. It becomes sacred, like himself. It is impossible to take it without doing vi

that which constitutes the proprietor; it is that which you fail to justify. In reasoning from the human personality and individuality to the right of property, you unconsciously construct a syllogism in which the conclusion

the world; man could not limit it, were not he himself its limit. Where they clash, there will be its frontier." In short, individuality of being destroys the hypothesis of communism, but it does not for that reas

be nonsuited without flagrant injustice, is a truth, not of INTUITION, as M. T

ith the Roman law, in accord with MM. Toullier and Duranton; but in his opinion this condi

tter by his labor; when he has deposited in it a portion of himself, re-creating it by his industry, and setting upon it

lled, thus humanized, would invade the man himself, a

oquence. M. Troplong is not only a philosopher, he is an orator, an artist. HE ABOUNDS WITH APPEALS TO THE CONSCIENCE AND THE PASSIO

possession are expressed,-seizure, station, immanence, habitation, cultivation, use, consumption, &c.; that labor, consequently, is but one of a thousand forms of occupancy. He would have understood, finally, that the right of possession which is born of labor is governed by the same

th to a right equal only to itself,-that is, a right which begins, continues, and ends, with the labor of the occupant. It is for this reason, in the words of the law, that one cannot acquire a j

whole structure falls of its own weight, and th

t, it is its nature to perpetuate itself and to last for an indefinite period.... Rights, considered from an ideal point of view, are imperishable and eternal; and time, which affects only the contingent, can no more distur

HTS ARE ETERNAL! Yes, in the sight of God, like the archetypal ideas of the Platonists. But, on the earth, rights exist only in the presence of a subject, an object, and a condition. Take away

al right, which cannot be destroyed save by the deed and at the will of the pro

. Pursuing its course and growing old by degrees, it has so completely clothed itself in the colors of truth, it has spoken so loudly the language of right, it has involved so many confiding interests, that it fairly may be asked whether it would not cause greater confusion to go

nt of time, indestructible except by the act and at the will of the proprietor; and here this right is taken from the proprietor, and on what ground? Good God! on the ground of ABSENCE! Is it not true that legists are governed by caprice in giving and taking away rights? When it pleases these gentlemen, idleness,

s claim would be none the more valid. Indeed, his ign

t; his carelessness,-a gratuitous supposition of your own! It is absurd. One very simple observation suffices to annihilate this theory. Society, which, they tell us, makes an exception in the inte

s somethin

istence, becomes entirely absorbed, and devotes himself to this post which he finds abandoned. Shall the deserter, then, dispute the honor of the v

when the neglect is authenticated; when the abandonment is solemnly and voluntarily set forth in a contract in the presence of a magistrate; when the proprietor dares to say, "I cease to labor, but I still claim a share of

ons differently?-why, instead of twenty and thirty years, is not a single year sufficient to prescribe?-why are not v

st take things as they are, society as it exists, laws as they are made: that is the only sensible starting-point." Well, then, write no more books; cease to reproach your pred

,-a conclusion which is evidently absurd; at another, he denies that possession HAD ANY HISTORICAL EXISTENCE PRIOR TO PROPERTY,-an assertion which is contradicted by the customs of many nations which cultivate the land without appropriating it; by the Roman law, which distinguished so clearly between POSSESSION and PROPERTY; and by our code itself, which makes possession for twenty or thirty years the condition of property. Finally, M. T

he condition of possessory interdicts." Why is not an action to acquire possession equally conceivable with an action to be reinstated in possession? When the Roman plebeians demanded a division of the conquered territory; when the proletaires of Lyons took for their motto, Vivre en travaillant, ou mourir en combattant (to live working, or die fighting); when the most enlightened of the modern economists claim for every man the right to labor and to live,-they only propose this interdict, adipiscendae possessionis, which embarrasses M. Troplong so seriously. And what is my object in pleading against property, if not to obtain possession? How is it that M. Troplong-the legist, the orator, the philosopher-does not see that logically this interdict must be admitted, since

successful than as a philosopher. One specimen of h

ly when commenced within the year of trouble by those who have

ong's co

ould it be set aside? The plaintiff had no seisin; he had no privileged possession; he had only a temporary occupancy, insufficient to warrant in his favor the presumption of property, which renders the annual possession so valuable. Well! this ae facto occupancy he has lost; another is invested with it: possession is in the hands of this new-comer. Now, is not this a case for the application of the principle, In pari causa possesser potior habetur? Should not the actual possessor be pref

call MY FIELD, and of which they wish to rob me, a war breaks out between the two competitors,-the legislator will gravely wait until the stronger, having killed the other, has had possession for a year! No, no, Monsieur Troplong! you do not understand the words of the law; for I prefer to call in question your intelligence rather than the justice of the legislator. You are mistaken in your application of the principle, In pari causa possessor potior habetur: the actuality of possession here refers to him who possessed at the time when the difficulty arose, not to him who possesses

on foundations so uncertain, it may be boldly declared that his work, whatever the a

nopoly of justice and good sense, and assumes to put in the pillory any one who dares to maintain an opinion contrary to its own. This fault, t

perceiving in myself other faults of a different character, I still adhere in this particular to my disputatious

do for two reasons: a REASON OF RIGHT, a

a utopia more or less ingenious, an idea conceived within my brain by means of imagination only. I lay do

assures me that that

s. Now, is there so much as a shadow of method in M. Toullier, M. Troplong, and this swarm of insipid commentators, almost as devoid of reason and moral sense as the code itself? Do you give the name of method to an alphabetical, chronological, analogical, or merely nominal classification of subjects? Do you give the name of method to these lists of paragraphs gathered under an arbitrary head, these sophistical vagaries, this mass of

atans and despots, to all exploiters of the poor and credulous, to all salaried idlers, dealers in political panaceas and parables, tyr

by heads? The French people are penned up in three or four flocks, receiving their signal from a chief, responding to the voice of a leader, and thinking just as he says. A certain journal, it is said, has fifty thousand subscribers; assuming six readers to every subscriber, we have three hundred thousand sheep browsing and bleatin

, and that without demonstration or verification. When, for example, I ask why these fortifications of Paris, which, in former times, under the influence of certain prejudices, and by means of a concurrence of extraordinary circumstances supposed for the sake of the argument to have existed, may perhaps have served to protect us, but which it is doubtful whether our descendants will ever u

not be bombarded; but you can be blockaded, and will be, if you stir. What! to obtain blockade forts from the Parisians, it has suf

happened more than once, and may happen again. Besides, when despotism is strong, it appears almost legitimate. However that may be, they lied in 1833, and they lie again in 1841,-those who threaten us with the bomb-shell. And then, if M. Thiers i

conquered, but sold; and that if, in 1815, Paris had had fortifications, it would have been with them as with the thirty thousand men of Grouchy, who were misl

they do so only to give the latter an opportunity to decline. The absolutist courts are always on better terms with our constitutional monarchy, than our monarchy with us. Does not M. Guizot say that France needs to be defended within as well as without? Within! against wh

sailants? Suppose our army defeated on the Rhine, France invaded, and defenceless Paris falling into the hands of the enemy. It would be th

owers act outside of Paris? Why this localization of all the vital forces of France?... Do not cry out upon decentralization. This hackneyed reproach would discredit only your own intelligence and sincerity. It is not a question of decentralizati

make an h

nt being annihilated and the national assembly dissolved, the electoral colleges shall reassemble spontaneously and withou

x, then at Bayonne, until all France be captured or the enemy driven from the land. For the government

nder Paris impregnable, try rather to render the loss of Paris an insignificant matter. Instead of accumulating about one point academies, faculties, schools, and political, administrative, and judicial centres; instead of arresting intellectual development and weakening public spirit in the provinces by this fatal agglomeration,-can you not, without destroying uni

of functions and the concentration of organs; b

that the city of Paris does not intend to surrender its pri

e democrats, because they hope to rule in their turn. 67 That which all rejoice at having obtained is a means of future repression. As for the defence of the country, they are not troubled about that. The idea of tyranny dwells in the minds of all, and brings together into one conspiracy all forms of selfishness. We wish the regeneration of society, but we subordinate this desire to our ideas and convenience. That our approac

ling any one to accuse its editors. A journal is a metaphysical being, for which no one is really responsible, and which owes its existence solely to mutual concessions. This idea ought to frighten t

e, like an orator in the tribune, to say "the learned author," "the eloquent writer," "the profound publicist," and a hundred other platitudes with which it is fashionable to mock people? These civilities seem to me no less insulting to the man attacked than dishonorable to the aggressor. But when, rebuking an author, I say t

these particulars, M. Troplong offends on the side of excess rather than deficiency. Further, do not believe that I am actuated by any personal animosity towards him, or that I have the slightest desire to wound his self-love. I know M. Troplong only by his "Treatise on Prescription," which I wish he had not written; and a

being by nature a little suspicious, it suddenly occurred to me that M. Wolowski was an advocate of equality in disguise, thrown in spite of himself into the position in which the patriarch Jacob pictures one of his sons,-inter duas clitellas, between two stools, as the proverb says. In more parliamentary language, I saw clearly that M. Wolowski was placed between his profound convictions on the one hand and his official duties on the other, and that, in order to maintain his position, he had to assume a certain slan

of property is not founded upon occupation, but upon the impress of man;

the use of this matter, what is property?-and if matter can be appropriated only by labor, how lon

h with the wake of a vessel, says "that property exists only where man has left his trace," which makes property dependent upon the solidity of the elements; Rousseau, the apostle of liberty and equality, but who, according to M. Wolowski, attacked property only AS A JOKE, and in order to point a paradox; Robespierre, who prohibited a division of the land, because he regarded such a measure as a rejuvenescence of property, and who, while awaiting the definitive organization of the republic, placed all

ght, is necessary to life, therefore it cannot be appropriated; and he replies:

onents of property refer only to property in land, while they merely take it as a term of comparison; and, in showing with wonderful clearness the absurdity of the positio

inguishes man from the animals." That may be; but

so did Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane, and all the rav

man race." Yes, and so has slavery, and despotism also; and lik

nt in favor of this right." I may regard this reply as personally addressed to me, since the observation belongs to me. I reply, "As long as an opinion is universally admitted, the universality of belief se

-day their cause is known. They all arise from a false theory of property. In principle, property is

ause, to explain this true theory from which no abuse is to spring; in short, to tell me how, without destroying property, it can be governed for the g

ow I think that I have demonstrated in my First Memoir, that large accumulation and minute division are the first two terms of an economical trinity,-a THESIS and an ANTITHESIS. But, while

le of collective power that I developed in my "Inquiries into Property and Government," and on which I have established the complete edifice of a new social organization. M. Wolowski is, as far as I know, the first jurist who has made a legislative application of this economical law. Only, while I have extended the principle of collective power to every sort of product, M. Wolowski, more prudent than it is

opment of humanity. It would be the death of progress; it would be suicide. What would have

st proposition

ols hinders human activity, and obstructs

curred in the middle ages? What do we see to-day in England, i

ide of h

cial interest. In consequence of literary property, soc

-verite. It consists, according to Dumarsais and the best humanists, in saying one thing while meaning another. M. Wolowski's proposition, naturally expressed, would read as fol

injurious to the former. M. Wolowski replies, that the rights of authors, without machinery, would be nil; that, without paper-mills, type foundries, and printing-offices,

wood into a pair of sabots, or an animal's hide into a pair of sandals, would thereby have acquired an exclusive right to make shoes for the human race!" Undoubtedly, under the system of property. For, in fact, this pair of sabots, over which you make so merry, is the creati

t its development, and a certain community of ideas, passions, and interests between it and the authors, the works of the latter wo

sive against the right of property. Why do artists, like mechanics, find the means to live? Because society has made the fine arts, like the rudest industries, objects of consumption

who for that purpose point out the power of the melodrama. They speak of the niece of Corneille, begging at the door of a theatre which the works of her

a second time through the booksellers?-that I, who have the right to report their lectures, should not have the right to print them? Is it just that MM. Noel and Chapsal, overseers of the University, should use their influence in selling their selections

o censure the author. And since it is impossible, in the present imperfect state of society, to prevent all violations of the moral law, it will be necessary to open a license-office for books as well as morals. But, then, thr

andestine reprint, how will he distinguish forgery from quotation, imitation, plagiarism, or even coincidence? A savant spends two years in calculating a table of logarithms to nine or ten decimals. He prints it. A fortnight after his bo

sale, by replacing them with poor imitations, by reproducing them in a hundred indirect ways; and no one knows how far the science of plagiarism, and skilful imitation may be carried. Against proprietors. Are we ignorant of the fact, that a demand for a dozen copies enables a bookseller to sell a thousand; that with an edition of five hundred he

e is only puffed up. His eloquence consists solely in coupling ideas which clash with each other: ROUND SQUARE, DARK SUN, FALLEN ANGEL, PRIEST and LOVE, THOUGHT and POETRY, GUNIUS {???}, and FORTUNE, LEVELING and PROPERTY. Let us tell him,

perty depended on the object to which it is applied, and not on the mode of its exercise and the condition of its existence. But the main object of "Le National" is to please a class of

ke manner to the heirs of the man of genius?" M. Wolowski's reply: "Because the labor of the first occupant is continued by his heirs, while t

continued, the right ceases. Thus is the right of posses

property in their works for a certain number of ye

led with shocking contradictions inserted with a view to make the useful truths more palatabl

; and the other designedly abandons the cause of property, in order to present under the same name the theory of individual possession. Was I wrong in claiming that

ophy, political economy, and the framers of systems have been

ssuring to proprietors. One of these philosophers, M. Pierre Leroux, has written two large books, in which he claims to show by all religious, legislative, and philosophical systems that, since men are responsible to each other, equality of cond

demigods, the demolisher of usurped reputations, the pitiless critic of every thing that is respected because of its antiquity. Such is the reason for my high esteem of M. Leroux; such would be the principle of the only literary association which, in this century of coteries, I should care to form. We need men who, like M. Leroux, call in question social principles,-not to diffuse doubt concerning them, but to make them doubly sure; men who excite the mind by bold negations, and make the conscience tremble by doctrines of annihilation. Where is the man who does not shudder on hearing M. Leroux exclaim, "There is neither a paradise nor a he

Like those gloomy invalids who are always talking of their approaching death, and who faint when the doctor's opinion confirms their pretence, our materialistic society is agitated and loses countenance while listening to this startling dec

see that thereby you would annihilate man and even the name of man?... You wish to abolish property; but could you live without a bo

m, and combats it with all his might. Man is a personal and free being, and therefore needs a sphere of independence and individual activity. M. Leroux emphasizes this in adding: "You wish neither family, nor country, nor property; therefore no more fathers, no mo

through a devotion of certain things to his use,-such as his body, his faculties, and the too

denounces in its turn the right of domain. His whole doctrine can be summed up in

rty man will be neither a slave nor a despot, but free, just, and a cit

ing man in time; 2. by separating him in space; 3. by dividing the land, or, in general terms, the instrumen

early enough it seems to me, that M. Leroux opposes the exclusive appropriation of the instruments of production; only he calls this non-appropriation of the instruments of production a

to see that the despotism of property is a correlative of the division of the human race;... that property, instead of being organized in such a wa

the inequality of conditions, men must cease from competition and must associate th

sider himself a proprietor if he were to share his revenue and profits w

a view to the infinite. For man is a finite being, who aspires to the infinite. To

ty, represents the infinite; that every nation, every tribe, every commune, and every citizen are, in different degrees, fragments or finite members of the infinite society, the evil in which results solely from

is an evil. Country is a blessing; the country caste (supreme, domineering, conquering) is an evil; property (individual

s, if we keep the name "property" for the former, we must call the latter robbery, rapine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we reserve the name "property"

ly declare that, in regard to property, I hold no other opinion than that of M. Leroux; but, if I should adopt the style of the philosopher, and repeat after him, "Property is a blessing, but the property caste-the statu quo of property-is an evil," I should be extolled as a genius by all the bachelors who w

octrine itself? From its foundation, "Le National" has been a nursery of intriguers and renegades. From time to time it takes care to warn its readers. Instead of lamenting over all its defections, the democratic sheet would do better to lay the blame on itself, and confess the shallowness of

ty, it is not the whole of property. That which makes property a DELIGHTFUL THING, as some philosopher (I know not who) has said, is the power to dispose at will, not only of one's own goods, but of their specific nature; to use them at pleasure; to confine and enclose them; to excommunicate mankind, as M. Pierre Leroux says; in short, to make such use of them as passion, interest, or even caprice, may suggest. What is the possession of money, a share in an agricultural or industrial enterprise, or a government-bond coupon, in comparison with the infinit

of property lately put forth with some

conflicts with their system. On the contrary, it is their custom to exult and sing

ey are beaten, they may have, at least, the selfish consolati

CONCLUSION. He would willingly write upon his hat, "Argumentator in barbara." But M. Considerant is too intelligent

vocate of crime. The syllogism has produced all the evils which the fabulist so eloquently condemned, and has done nothing good or useful: it is as devoid of truth as of justice. We might apply to it these

risk the whole doctrine of equality upon my refutation of that system? Such a duel would be quite in keeping with the warlike and chivalric tastes of M. Considera

ter. In the first place, the author lays it down as a principle: "1. That the use of the land belongs to each member of the race; that it is a natural and imprescriptible right, similar in all respects to the right to the air and

right to labor creates the right of pr

es the thing which his labor, his skill,-or, i

from the fundamental principle of property, that the land, being given to the race in common, can in no wise b

osition, at first sight and in its entirety, does not s

nt, being intended to prove the legitimacy of property, would have no meaning. I might here raise the question of the difference b

of CREATION to be the only basis of property. 2. In that it regards

but which he PLANTS; of the animals which he does not create, but which he REARS,-it is conceivable that men may in like manner become proprietors of the land which they do not create, but which they clear and fe

first time to industry, agriculture, manufactures, &c. This generation, by its labor, intelligence, and activity, creates products, develops values which did not exist on the uncultivated land. Is it not perfectly clear that the property of thi

on to fractions. And it is this unity of society which makes the land common property, and which, as M. Considerant says, renders its use imprescriptible in the case of every individual. Suppose, indeed, that at a given time the soil should be equally divided; the very next moment this division, if it allowed the right of property, would become illegitimate. Should t

st M. Considerant, by the t

s of the labor performe

ity.... Second class.-Not only has this generation created the products just mentioned (objects of consumption and instruments of labor), but it has also added to the original value of the soil by cultivation, by the erection of buildings, by all the labor producing permanent results, which it has performed. This additional value evidently constitutes a product-a value created by the activity of the first generation; and if, BY ANY MEANS WHA

e THE RIGHT TO LABOR, AND THE RIGHT TO LAND. For we must not be deceived; in the phalanstery every thing will be as it is to-day, an object of property,-machines, inventions, thought, books, the products of art, of agriculture, and of industry; animals, houses, fences, vineyards, pastures, forests, fields,-every thing, in short, except the UNCULTIVATED LAND. Now, would you like to know what uncultivated land is worth, according to the advocates of property? "A square league hardly suffices for the support of a savage," says M. Charles Comte. Estimating the wretched subsistence of this savage at three hundred fra

is only a privilege of extra pay. In Fourier's system, neither the created capital nor the increased value of the soil are divided and appropriated in any effective manner: the instruments of labor, whether created or not, remain in the hands of the phalanx; th

uld please the communists no better, since it involves unequal conditions. It is repugnant to the friends of free association and equality, in consequence of

scour the country; have recourse to none of your ordinary expedients; no complaints of civilization; no sarcasms upon equality; no glorification of the phalanstery. Leave Fourier and the departed in peace, and endeavor only to re-adjust the pieces of your syllogism. To this end, you ought, first, to analyze closely each proposition of your adversary; second, t

of vindicating my dignity as a writer, did not prevent me from passing in silence the reproach uttered against me by a correspondent of "La Phalange." "We have seen but lat

regard it as a crime, if they are sincere? Of what consequence is the constancy or inconstancy of an individual to the truth which is always the same? It is better to enlighten men's minds than to teach them to be obstinate in their prejudices. Do we

mutable, becaus

am no better than my fathers. But, in a century of doubt and apostasy like ours, when it is of importance to set the small and the weak an example of stren

admit the truth of a few of their criticisms, they straightway enlist him, willy-nilly, in their school. Nevertheless, I do not deny that I have been a Fourierist; for, since they say it, of course it may be so. But, sir, that of which my ex-associates are ignorant, and which doubtless will astonish you, is that I have been many other things,-in religion, by turns a Protestant, a Papist, an Arian and Semi-Arian, a Manichean, a Gnostic, an Adamite even and

ate of my Fourieristic beliefs. Now I hold quite other views. My mind no longer admits that which is demonstrated by syllogisms, analogies, or metaphors, which are the methods of the phalanstery, but demands a process of generalization and i

; if all mankind are still buried in the darkness of faith, deceived by their prejudices and passions, guided only by the instinct of their leaders; if my accusers, themselves, are not free fro

To-day, even, and on a multitude of questions, I am beset by a thousand extravagant and contradictory opinions; but my opinions I do not print, for the public has nothing to do with them. Befo

ool. To be a faithful Fourierist, in fact, one must abandon his reason and accept every thing from a master,-doctrine, interpretation, and application. M. Considerant, whose excessive intolerance anathematizes all who do not abide by his sovereign decisions, has

gicians, nor even believers; that they were SCIENTIFIC QUACKS, who were led more by their self-love than their conscience to labor for the triumph of their sect, and to whom all means were good that would reach that end. I then understood why to the Epicureans they promised women, wine, music, and a sea of luxury; to the rigorists, maintenance of marriage, purity of morals, and temperance; to laborers, high wages; to proprietors, large incomes; to philosophers, solutions the s

d to them, proudly shook the dust from their feet, and started for the Orient to fight the battle of free woman. Pride, wilfulness, mad selfishness! True charity, like true faith, does not worry, never despairs; it seeks neither its own glory, nor its interest, nor empire; it does every thing for all, speak

ndoned to the demon of falsehood and discord; and it is this sad sight which grieves so deeply many distinguished minds who lived too long in a former age to be able to understand ours. Now, while the short-sighted spectator begins to despair of humanity, and, distracted and cursing that of

ntary and unpremeditated, that I would dare to affirm that there is not an economist, not a philosopher, not a jurist, who is not a hundred times guiltier than I. There is someth

s of their ignorance and excessive vanity. Relying more on Providence than on men; not suspecting at first that politics, like every other science, contained an absolute truth; agreeing equally well with Bossuet and Jean Jacques,-I accepted with resignation my share of human misery, and contented myself with praying to God for good dep

ical terminology will be glad to be told in a few words wha

or-judged, and rightly, that certain ones among them were called by nature to the performance of simple and common functions; but they concluded, and this is where their error lay, that these same individuals of duller intellect, more restricted genius, and weaker personality, were predestined to SERVE the others; that is, to labor while the latter rested, and to have no other will than theirs: and from this idea of a natural subordination among men sprang domesticity, which, voluntarily accepted at first, wa

oked at, history is the demonstration of the error

seful being immediately recognized, we should no longer need to await the sorrowful experience of time. Evidently such a secret would be death to the sophists,-that cursed brood, who, under different names, excite the curi

f the senses; others intuition; these evidence; those argument. M. Lamennais affirms that there is no other criterion than universal reason. Before him, M. de Bonald thought he had discovered it in language. Quite

al reason has been wrong many a time; that language serves equally well to express the true or the false; that morality, like all the rest, needs demonstration and rule; and finally, that the eclectic idea is the least reasonable of all, since it is of no use to say that there are several criteria if we canno

hitherto unsuspected, and lift a paradox to the highest degree of certainty. In such a case, it is not by its novelty, nor even by its content, that a system should be judged, but by its method. The cri

philosophical twaddle, I resolved to make a new search for the criterion. I confess it, to my shame, this folly lasted for two years, and I am not yet entirely rid of it. It was like seeking a needle in a haystack. I might have learned Chinese or Arabic in the time that I have lost in c

sico-economico-political treatise, whose conclusions were such that I did not care to present them in a more artistic or, if you will, more intelligible form. The effect which this work produced upon all classes of minds gave me an idea

afflict us inherent in our condition as men, or do they arise only from an error? This inequality of fortunes which all admit to be the cause of society's embarrassments, is it, as some assert, the effect of Nature; or, in the division of the products of labor and the soil,

absurd pretensions, and to describe fictitious debts, dishonest transactions, and fraudulent accounts. In order to triumph over quibblers, I had to deny the authority o

es of social inequality are three in number: 1. GRATUITOUS APPROPRIATION OF CO

essence of the domain of property, I denied the legitim

lity of fortunes; I have allowed myself no attack upon persons, no assault upon the government, of which I, more than any one else, am a provisional adherent. If I have s

my book has been bitterly censured. They complain of an atmosphere of passion and invectiv

uld offer being of such a nature that it ought not to be communicated to the public. All that I can say is, that I understand better than any one how the anger which injustice causes may render an author harsh and violent in his criticisms. When, after twenty years of lab

rty is the result of a perpetual Machiavelianism on the part of the governors against the governed,-a deplorable error of which my book itself is the best refutation. I devoted two chapters to showing how property springs from human personality and the comparison of individuals. Then I explained its perpetual limitation; and, following out the same idea, I predicted

lionnaire is no more tainted by property than the journeyman who works for thirty sous per day. On both sides the error is equal, as well as the intention. The effect is also the same, though positive in the former, and negative in the latter. I accused property; I did not denounce the proprietors, which would have been absurd:

with each other, and extracting from them that which is common to them all, I endeavored to discover that element in the idea of property which is necessary, immutable, and absolute; and asserted, after authentic verification, that this idea is reducible to that of INDIVIDUAL AND TRANSMISSIBLE POSSESSION; SUSCEPTIBLE OF EXCHANGE, BUT NOT OF ALIENATION; FOUNDED ON

(if my religion is false, God is to blame)." I, as well as this theologian, can say, "If equality is a fable, God, through whom we act and think and are; God, w

ror, and led out of it. It is surely worth the trouble, and I t

kill is not to reply. Until then, I persist in regarding my work as useful, social, f

define principles, or at least test them in the fire of controversy. Such is the law,-the idea first, the pure idea, the understanding of the laws of God, the theory

ice produces in humanity the realiza

n us is to refrain from appropriating the truth to ourselves, either by concealing it, or by accommodating it to the temper of the cent

nd the ephemeral, the eternal and the transitory, in laws present and past; from constructing a new system of legislation, and establishing on a solid foundation this social edifice, ever destroyed and as often rebuilt? Might I not, taking up the definitions of casuists, have clearly shown the cause of their contradictions and uncertainties, and suppli

furrow. The critic of laws finds nothing more difficult than to determine justice: the labor alone would have been longer. Oh, if I had pursued this glittering prospect, and, like the man of the burning bush, with inspired countenance and

d I have deserved in your opinion, at the tribunal of God, and i

unity of principles which alone can assure to society a better day. I expected to receive, if not for my book, at least for my commendable conduct, a small republican ovation. And, behold! journalists denounce me, academicians curse me, political adventurers (great God!) think to make themselves tolerable by protesting that they are not like me! I gi

, the monopoly of thought, property in reason, oppresses the proletariat as well as the

s prompt to identify the voice of their chiefs with the truth. Let us encourage rather their simple credulity, enlighten complacently and tenderly their precious sinceri

e of Oct. 11, 1840), on the question of property. I leave, therefore, the journalist to address myself only to his reader

that men and things exist, there always will be men who wil

on to PROPERTY. This coincidence, however, does not surprise me. M. Cousin is a philosopher of much mind, and you

ght to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbor's labor,-then property changed its nature, and its idea became complex. The legists knew this very well, but instead of opposing, as they ought, this accumulation of profits, they accepted and sanctioned the whole. And as the right of farm-rent necessarily i

inent right, the heroic or quiritaire right,-in Latin, jus perfectum, jus optimu

y e demonstrated; but when, in imitation of M. Cousin, we assume it to be the basis of the domain of property, we fall int

is deduced from different acceptations of the same term is quite another. The first gives the universal idea, the axiom, the law; the second indicates the order of generation of ideas. All our errors arise from the constant confusion of these two kinds of abstractions. In this particular, languages and philosophies are alike deficient. The less common a

sons which I have just given, must necessarily disappear, is it best, for the slight advantage of restoring an etymology, to retain

ons of acquiring, possessing, and transmitting it... It cannot be denied that inheritance,

t OF DOMAIN; to associate employees with proprietors is to destroy the EMINENT right; to suppress or even reduce farm-rent, house-rent, revenue, and increase generally, is to annihilate PERFECT property

one-for rejecting not only the thing, but the name, p

ea was to give bread to the people; when Christianity revolutionized the world, its idea was to emancipate mankind, and to substitute the worship of one God for the deities of Epicurus and Homer; when France rose in '89, her idea was liberty and equality before the law. There has been no true revolution, say

the nineteenth century?-for really I cannot call you revolutionists. What do you think?-what do you believe?-what do you want? Be guarded in your reply.

of this word entite,-new, w

f which Sganarelle speaks, and the PECCANT HUMORS of ancient medicine, are entites. The entite is the support of those who do not wish to confess their ignorance. It is

ormulas-assures us that the evils of humanity are due to our IGNORANCE OF LIFE, M. Pierre Leroux utters an entite; for it i

use there is an ANTAGONISM of men and of interests, he declares an

and love, he proclaims two entites; for we need to know on wh

what direction society should proceed in order to be in progress. As for the sovereignty of the people, that is a grosser entite than the sovereignty of reason; it is the entite of entites. In fact, since sovereignty can no more be conceived of outside of the people than outside of reason, it rem

he law, equal in personality, equal in social fu

e, to be relations of commutative justice,-in a word, social relations; suppose, I say, that, percei

r whole idea,-that is, an expression which states at once the principle

ively divesting itself of its negative elements, slavery, nobility, despotism, aristocracy, and feudalism,-I say that, to eliminate the last negation of society, to f

it is EQUALITY, whose consequences frighten you. How, you have said in your journal,-how can we "dream of a le

and Themistocles all the votes for the second. The people of Minerva were crowned by their own hands. Truly heroic souls! all were worthy of the olive-branch, since all had ventured to claim it for themselves. Anti

irst, because such eulogies are never deserved; and, second, because they furnish a bad example. But I wish, in order to reconcile you to equality, to measure for you the greatest literary personage of our century. Do not accuse me of envy

it. Acquaint yourselves, then, with this speculation more brilliant than sound; and, while admiring the enthusiasm of the author, cease to pity those useful labors which only habit and the great num

that. We have still to find out whether the belief of the human race is legitimate; or, as Kant says, whether our subjective certainty of the existence of God corre

of God, M. Lamennais sings a hy

ty only on the authority of revelation, M. Lamennais pretends to arrive at it by the sole force of argument; and he does not perceive that his pretended demonstration is,

t there is in matter a matter which is not matter; that the archetypal ideas of the world are separated from each other, in the Divine mind, by a division which is obscure and unintelligible, and yet substantial and real, which involves intelligibility, &c. We meet with like contradictions concerning the origin of evil. To explai

Suppress, as useless entites, the three persons in God; then, starting directly from heat, light, and electro-magnetism,-which, according to the author, are the three original fluids, the three primary external manifestations of Will, Intelligence, and Love,-you have a materialistic and atheistic cosmogony. On the contrary, a

his predecessors in philosophy, and disdains to quote his originals. He thinks that, since "L'Esquisse" contains all true philosophy, the world will lose nothing when the names and works of the old philosophers perish. M. Lamennais, who renders glory to God in beaut

c ideas. The psychological portion amounts to nothing, M. Lamennais openly ridiculing labors of this character, without which, however, metaphysics is impossible. The book, which treats of logic and its methods, is weak, vague, and shallow. Finally, we find in the physical and physiological speculations which M. Lamennais deduces from his trinitarian cosmogony grav

e M. Lamennais is preeminently a poet, a man of feeling and sentiment. Look at his style,-exuberant, sonorous, picturesque, vehement, full of exaggeration and invective,-and hold it for certain that no man possessed of such a style was ever a true metaphysician. This wealth of expression and illustration, which everybody admires, becomes in M Lamennais the incurable cause of his philosophical im

s which marked the beginning of this century, and falls back to the middle ages and Gregory VII.; then, suddenly becoming a progressive Christian and a democrat, he gradually leans towards rationalism, and finally falls into deism. At present, everybody wait

spierre, a courtier of the Emperor, a bigot during fifteen years of the Restoration, a conservative since 1830, should dare to say that he ever had wished for but one thing,-public order? Would he be regarded as any the less a renegade from all parties? Public order, unity, the world's welfare, social harmony, the union of the nations,-concerning each of these things there is no pos

ty. By our very nature and education, we possess only special aptitudes which are limited and confined, and which become consequently more necessary as they gain in depth and strength. Capacities are to each other as functions a

ontempt. The lesson is a good one, proletaires; we should profit by it. It is not talent (which is also a force), it is not knowledge, it is not beauty which makes the man

is easier for M. Lamennais to recite a philippic, or sing a humanitarian ode after the Platonic fashion, than to discover a single useful truth; it is easier for an economist to apply the laws of production and distribution than

dy for labor and for battle, you have, when liberty and

ais seems to be only the tool of a quasi-radical party, which flatters him in order to use him, without respect for a glorious, but hence forth powerless, old age. What means this profession of faith? From the first number of "L'Avenir" to "L'Esquisse d'une Philosophie," M. Lamennais always favors equality, association, and even a so

s the heroism of the Christian. Why has the apostle of love become an apostle of anger and revenge? Has, then, the translator of "L'Imitation" forgotten that he who offends charity cannot honor virtue? Galileo, retracting on his knees before the tribunal of the inquisition his heresy in regard to the movement of the earth, and recovering at that price his liberty, seems to me a hundred times grander than M. Lamennais. What! if we suffer for truth and justice, must we, in retaliation, thrust ou

is to blame. In fact, in intention, or in example, all are found wanting; and you have no right to accuse any one. The king himself (God forgive me! I do not like to justify a king),-the king himself is, like his predecessors, only the personification of an idea, and an idea, proletaires, which possesses you yet. His great

d the law! Fifty thousand laws, they say, make up our political and civil codes. Of these fifty thousand laws, twenty-five thousand are for you, twenty-five thousand against you. Is it not clear that your duty is

he future republic, I would instruct the laboring masses to conquer property through institutions and judicial pleadings; to seek auxiliaries and

done; but from this million of citizens, who are as willing to vote for an emperor as for equality, could we not select ten thousand signatures-I mean bona fide signatures-w

CY THE MINISTER

shops, shall appear in the 'Moniteur,' the undersigned, to the number of TEN THOUSAND, will repair to the Pa

petition is refused, the undersigned, to the number of TEN THOUSAN

on, its hopes of 1830 restored, should feel it its duty to keep its promise,-and it would keep it, for the word of the nation is, like that of God, sacred,-if, I say, the nation, reconciled by this act with t

the nation wishes to

FRENCH NATION'? Then abandon these grasping bankers, these quarrelsome lawyers, these miserable bourgeois, these infamous writers, these dishonored men. All these, Sire, hate you, and continue to support you only beca

he government of Louis Philippe should be tacitly recognized. "National workshops! it were well to have such institutions established," you think; "but patriotic hearts never will accept them from an aristocratic ministry, nor by the courtesy of

es, either this clever sophistry which is attributed to me must be at bottom a very tri

g it. It is true that the corrections which I propose, though respecting the form, tend to finally change the nature of the things corrected. Who denies it? But it is precisely that which constitutes my system of statu quo. I make no war upon symbols, figures, or phantoms. I respect scarecrows, and bow before bugbears. I ask, on the one hand, that property be left as it is, but that interest on all kinds of capital be gradually lowered and finally abolished; on the other hand, that the charter be maintained in its present shape, but that method be introduced into administration and politics. That is all. Nevertheless, submitting to all that is, though not satisfied with it, I endeavor to conform to the established order, and to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Is it thou

nstration. Consequently, there would be no more fear of cliques, courtiers, and appanages, since no new inequality could be established. The king, as king, would have friends (unheard-of thing), but no family. His relatives or kinsmen,-agnats et cognats,-if they were fools, would be nothing to him; and in no case, with the exception of the heir apparent, would they have, even in court, more privileges than others. No more nepotism, no more favor, no more baseness. No one would go to court save wh

c, I could not accommodate myself equally well, and perhaps better. By nature, I hate all signs of distinction, crosses of honor, gold lace, liveries, costumes, honorary titles, &c., and, above all, parades. If I had my way, no general should be distinguished from a soldier, nor a peer of France from a peasant. Why have I never taken part in a review? for I am ha

nobleman. Afterwards, distinction was based on wealth, and the bourgeoisie jealous of the nobility, and proud of their money, used 1830 to promote, not liberty by any means, but the aristocracy of wealth. When, through the force of events, and the natural laws of society, for the development of which France offers such free play, equality shall be established in functions and fortunes, then the beaux and the belles, the savants and the

more fixed opinions than "Le Journal des Debats," I presume that, Armand Carrel being dead, M. Armand Marrast is now first consul, and M. Garnier-Pages second consul. In every thing the deputy must give way to the journalist. I do not speak of M. Arago, whom I believe to be, in spite of calumny, too learn

ed of felony, and, the interest of the governors always being, for some mysterious reason, opposed to the interest of the governed, parliaments follow each other while the nation dies of hunger. No, no! No more protectors, no mor

to the laborers; equality to the wealthy. I push forward the revolution by all means in my pow

, everybody wishes to be reckoned among the lunatics of Beranger. To say nothing of the Babeufs, the Marats, and the Robespierres, who swarm in our streets and workshops, all the great reformers of antiquity live again in the most illustrious personages of our time. One is Jesus Christ, another Moses, a third Mahomet; this is Orpheus, that Plato, or Pytha

ording to the temperament, so my madness has its p

s my desire, on the contrary, to communicate my enthusiasm, and to make it, as far as I can, epidemic. I wish that all were, like myself, reformers,

nders when the globe shall be covered with phalansteries. For myself, I have as great a horror of miracles as of authorities, and aim only at logic. That is why I continually search after the criterion of certainty. I work for the reformation of ideas. Li

my judgment, to construct a syllogism, and to look for the truth in the regions of the unknown. Now, I am for generalization, induction, and progress. I regard general disappropriation as impossible: attacked from that

of equality; to say to those politicians of the tribune and the press, for whose fruitless quarrels we pay so dearly, "You are rushing forward, blind as you are, to the abolition of property; but the government marches with its eyes open. You hasten the future by unprincipl

generous minds hardly dare to acknowledge?... I feel my whole being tremble when I think that the testimony of three men-yes, of three men who make it their

ies are friendly to us? Then let the government declare its position; let it print its profession of faith in equality, and I am dumb. Otherwise, I shall continue the war; and the more obstinacy and malice is shown, the oftener will I redouble my energy and audacity. I have said before, and I repeat it,-I have sworn, not on the dagger and the death's-head, amid the horrors of a catacomb, and in the presence of men besmeared with blood; but I have sworn on my consci

at alone suffices; but it must be the liberty to

authorities of all kinds and

ion is wanted,

nctionaries. Since the governmental machinery must be kept in motion, in order to preserve unity and attain our object, we must not reason; we must obey. But the same individual who is bound, from this point of view, to passive obedience, has th

bey."-Kant: Fragment on the Liberty of Thou

mor has dragged it down; and that, by a new presentation of the question, I might dissipate the fears of good citizens. I now reenter upon the public use of my reason, and give truth full swing. The second edition of the Fir

t knew nothing of the science which reveals them,-political economy. I have, then, testified as to FACTS; in short, I have been a WITNESS. Now my role changes. It remains for me to deduce th

sideration that I owe to yo

le and most ob

PROU

the Academy

iterary property is only a special form of the right of property, which everybody claims to understand. Let us hope that this legislative precedent will not be fruitless for

TNO

ret

ixed to the first volume of his correspondence, but the translator prefers to ins

ret

Proudhon. A treatise which received honorable mention fr

ret

day," &c. By P. J. Proudhon. Besancon, 1

ret

"Wisdom," Ch

ret

ial to whom I have been indebted, since my first publication, for assistance and protection; but such generosity in the political arena is so rare that one may acknowledge it graciously and freely. I have always thought, for my part, that bad institutions made bad magistrates; just as the cowardice and hypocrisy of certain

ret

aminer; a philosopher whose b

ret

ods of the patrician families; jus gentium-right of nations; that is, of families or nobles. The slave and the plebeian

ret

dea has never occurred to any one; it might be made the subject of an interesting essay. But I declare that I wou

ret

th America." Plutarch tells us, "Life of Pericles," that in Athens honest people were obliged

(re

A materialistic definition: if sovereignty is any thing, it is a

(re

V. Proudhon; a distinguished French juris

(re

them. But Peter has only one daughter, while John, his brother, leaves six sons. It is clear that, to be true to the principle of equality, and at the same time to that of heredity, the two estates must be divided in seven equal portions among the children of Peter and John; for otherwise a stranger might marry Peter's daughter, and by this alliance half of the property of James, the grandfather, would be transferred to another family, which is contr

(re

s kle

(re

s into the Right of Prop

(re

sion expressly signified that the lord, in answer to the praye

(re

inclinations and propensities of certain men. Whence comes this shameful degradation of heart and min

(re

How many for an economist?-Two billions. And for a literary man, who is neither a savant,

(re

translator, feeling sure that the reader will understand Pro

(re

xercetur, ille autem a duobus reciprocatur, masculo scilicet et faemina. Porro f

(re

-plurality o

(re

hildren than the law allows; and he asks that a magnificent cemetery, adorned with statues, groves, fountains, and flowers, be set apart as a special burying-place for the superfluous chil

(re

h is derived the French aumone); in Latin, to perform an act of love or charity; in French, give alms. We can trace the degradation of this principle through t

(re

f sociability which is peculiar to man. Humanity, gentle and courteous to all,

(re

uite never have

(re

ns. The difference of the sexes places a barrier between them, like that placed between animals by a difference of race. Consequently, far from a

(re

s the grave of Florentine liberty," sai

(re

l de Brossard said, like Achilles: "I get wine,

(re

a pass where they do not know what to think of usury. The Church-the teacher of morality, so jealous and so proud of the purity of her doctrine-has always been ignorant of the real nature of property and usury. She even has proclaimed through her pontiffs the most deplorable errors. Non potest mutuum, said Benedict XIV., locationi ullo pacto comparari. "Rent," says Bossuet, "is as far from usury as heaven i

(re

ops and the large proprietors and seigneurs are famous. The papal excommunications fulminated in defence of ecclesiastical revenues are no less so. Even to-day, the official organs of the Gallican clergy still maintain that the pay re

(re

" is absence of principle, absence of rule; consequent

(re

e and reason. Gradually, this abstraction is becoming realized, as the logicians say, in society; so that we have to-day savants of many kinds who talk but little, and TALKERS who are not even savants in the science of speech. Thus a philosopher is no longer a savant: he is a talker. Legislators and poets were once profound and sublime characters: now they are talkers. A talker i

(re

),-words which have a common derivation. Liberty is the balance of rights and duties.

(re

upon justice, upon strict right, upon the principles invoked by the proprietor himself; otherwise it will never exist. Self-sacrifice is superior to justice; but it cannot be imposed as law, because it is of such a nature as to admit of no reward. It is, indeed, desirable that everybody shall recognize the necessity of self- sacrifice, and the idea of "L'Eg

(re

NSTRATION, not by myths and allegories? Why do they, the deadly enemies of civilization, borrow from it, nevertheless, its most pernicious fruits,-property, inequality of fortune and rank, gluttony, concubinage, prostitution, what do I know? theurgy, magic, and sorcery? Why these endless denunciations of morality, metaphysics, and psychology, when the abuse of these sciences, which they do not understand, constitutes their whole system? Why this mania for deifying a man whose principal merit consisted in talking nonsense about things whose names, even, he did not know, in the strongest language ever put upon paper? Whoever admits the infalli

(re

to repeat what so many others have said, and what by this time all the world must know. But I am surprised that the economists, who have so clearly shown the disadvantages of spade-husbandry

(re

e fifth of January, 1841, M. Dufaure moved to renew th

(re

ty?" Chap. IV., N

(re

nem meam et resurrecti

(re

to the number of laborers in the factory. "You profit by man's labor," the Czar could have said to his proprietors; "you shall be responsible for man's life." M. Blanqui has said that such a measure could not succeed in France. It would

(re

lanqui. Lecture

(re

an demands, amid the applause of the gall

(re

letaire; C'est l l'o

(re

ame countries, property is expressive, rather than attributive, of the qualifications necessary to the exercise of t

(re

e of Dec

(re

of Jan.

(re

of Jan.

(re

nqui and

(re

l and Political Sciences: "What would be the effect upon the working-class o

(re

in France, up to the present time, and those which seem likely to appear in future,

(re

er property. The Vulgate

(re

ons. Consult, among other works, "Origin of French Law," b

(re

tuta forent, qui miseri, egentes, violentia atque crudelitate foeneraterum, plerique patriae, sed omncsfarna atque fortunis expertes su

(re

eighty per cent.-C

(re

ncias oberrantes, negotiationis quaestuosae nundinas au uucu-, pari, esurientibus in ecclesia fratribus habere argentum largitur velle, fundos insidi.sis fraudibus rapere, usuris multiplicanti

(re

erning Property a

(re

o.... Such is the love of man for the land. Limited by tombs, measured by the members of the human body, by the thumb, the foot, and the arm, it harmonizes, as far as possible, with the very proportions of man. Nor is he satisfied yet: he calls Heaven to witness that it is his; he tries to or his

(re

ples of civilization." So general an assertion cannot be refuted. Some of these ideas and causes should have been pointed out, that we might judge whether their source was not wholly Christian, o

(re

unt, so much for a baron, so much for a freeman, so much for a prie

(re

of liberty, but from the desire for exemption from the charges of the seigniors, from individual interests, and jealousy of the welfare of others.... Each commune or corporation opposed the creation of every o

(re

tian religion-risked its life by unlimited self-denial and absolute indifference to the pleasures of the world. Feudalism was the balance-weight which saved Europe from the combined influence of the religious communities and the Manlchean sects which had sprung up since th

(re

e bourgeoisie which makes and unmakes ministries. It is the bourgeoisie which has destroyed the influence of the Upper Chamber, and which will dethrone the King whenever he shall become unsatisfactory to it. It is to please the bourgeoisie that royalty makes itself unpopular. It is the bourgeoisie which is troubled at the hopes of the people, and which hinders reform. The journals of the bourgeoisie are the ones which preach morality and religion to us, while re

(re

"Nature," said he, "has not endowed man with landed property." Changing the adjective LANDED, which designates

(re

e of IDLENESS, but because of UNWORTHINESS. "You have civilized the world," cries this apostle of equality, speaking to the priests; "and for that reason your possessions

(re

e on Presc

(re

n of Fre

(re

his; the whole is greater than a part, a straight line is the shortest road from one point to another,-truths of intuition. All are a priori but the first are felt by the conscien

(re

that he wished this property to be elected, not by the people, but by the army. The political system of Carrel was simply a reorganization of the pretorian guards. Carrel also hated the pequins. That which he deplored in the revolution of July was not, they say, the insurrection of the people, but the victory of the people over the soldiers. That is the reason why Carrel

(re

eve); that one must be a fool to attack property (but he does not say why); and that it is very necessary to guard against confounding property

(re

se, finds that the painter is right; only the property in the design should have been specially reserved in the contract: so that, in reality, M. Villemain recognizes in the artist a power to surrender his work and prevent its communication; thus contradicting the legal axiom, One CANNOT GIVE AND KEEP AT THE SAME TIME. A strange reasoner is M. Villemain! An ambiguous principle leads to a false conclusion. Instead of rejecting the principle, M. Villemain hastens to admit the conclusion. With him the reductio ad absurdum is a convincing argument. Thus he is made official de

(re

do not know whether the industrious encyclopedist is pleased with the praise,

(re

ial," of

(re

s only by a few subtle distinctions. M. Pierre Leroux, who regards Jesus as a m

the two, the Manicheans make war upon matter, and labor with all their might for the destruction of the flesh, by condemning marriage and forbidding reproduction,-which does not prevent

who held peculiar ideas concerning the visions of somnambulists, and who believed in the possibility of developing the magneti

f the senses for chastity, and who saw in modesty only a refinement of pleasure, inclined towards Adamism. I k

before the first man. I once met a Pre-A

berty. The Fourierists, who teach that man's nature and passions are good

iginal revelation. Many people are Socinians to-day, who

ute in mind and senses, the Neo-Christians seek especially after the external form, and admire religion, as they love women, for its physical beauty

(re

r root and raison d'existence in society itself, and for this reason deserve to be examined. The peculiar speculations of Fourier and his sect concerning cosmogony, geology,

(re

escapes our contingent and finite nature; the absolute is the secret of God." God keep from evil M. Louis Raybaud! But I cannot help remarking that all political apostates begin by the negation of the absolute, which is really the negation of truth. What can a writer, who professes scepticism, have in common with radical views? What has he to say to his readers? What judgment is he entitled to pa

(re

means of transferring power from the hands of petty tyrants to the hands of other tyrants. We know already how a nation may be oppressed by being led to believe that it is obeying only its own laws. The history of universal suffrage, among all nations, is the history of the restrictions of liberty by and in the name of the multitude. Still, if the electoral reform, in its present shape, were rational, practical, acceptable to clean consciences and upright minds, perhaps one might be excused, though ignorant of its object, for supporting it. But, no; the text of the petition determines nothing, makes no distinctions, requires no conditions, no guarantee; it establishes the right without the duty. "Every Frenchman is a voter, and eligible to office." As well say: "Every bayon