"TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:—
"MONSIEUR LE MINISTRE,—On the day when a royal ordinance, decreeing the establishment of model national workshops, shall appear in the 'Moniteur,' the undersigned, to the number of TEN THOUSAND, will repair to the Palace of the Tuileries, and there, with all the power of their lungs, will shout, 'Long live Louis Philippe!'
"On the day when the 'Moniteur' shall inform the public that this petition is refused, the undersigned, to the number of TEN THOUSAND, will say secretly in their hearts, 'Down with Louis Philippe!'"
If I am not mistaken, such a petition would have some effect. 75 The pleasure of a popular ovation would be well worth the sacrifice of a few millions. They sow so much to reap unpopularity! Then, if the nation, 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 the public-spirited monarchy, should bear to the foot of the throne its cheers and its vows, and should at that solemn moment choose me to speak in its name, the following would be the substance of my speech:—
"SIRE,—This is what the nation wishes to say to your Majesty:—
"O King! you see what it costs to gain the applause of the citizens. Would you like us henceforth to take for our motto: 'Let us help the King, the King will help us'? Do you wish the people to cry: 'THE KING AND THE 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 because they fear us. Finish the work of our kings; wipe out aristocracy and privilege; consult with these faithful proletaires, with the nation, which alone can honor a sovereign and sincerely shout, 'Long live the king!'"
The rest of what I have to say, sir, is for you alone; others would not understand me. You are, I perceive, a republican as well as an economist, and your patriotism revolts at the very idea of addressing to the authorities a petition in which the 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 a king." Already, undoubtedly, your old prejudices have returned, and you now regard me only as a sophist, as ready to flatter the powers that be as to dishonor, by pushing them to an extreme, the principles of equality and universal fraternity.
What shall I say to you?... That I should so lightly compromise the future of my theories, either this clever sophistry which is attributed to me must be at bottom a very trifling affair, or else my convictions must be so firm that they deprive me of free-will.
But, not to insist further on the necessity of a compromise between the executive power and the people, it seems to me, sir, that, in doubting my patriotism, you reason very capriciously, and that your judgments are exceedingly rash. You, sir, ostensibly defending government and property, are allowed to be a republican, reformer, phalansterian, any thing you wish; I, on the contrary, demanding distinctly enough a slight reform in public economy, am foreordained a conservative, and likewise a friend of the dynasty. I cannot explain myself more clearly. So firm a believer am I in the philosophy of accomplished facts and the statu quo of governmental forms that, instead of destroying that which exists and beginning over again the past, I prefer to render every thing legitimate by correcting 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 thought, for instance, that I love property?... Very well; I am myself a proprietor and do homage to the right of increase, as is proved by the fact that I have creditors to whom I faithfully pay, every year, a large amount of interest. The same with politics. Since we are a monarchy, I would cry, "LONG LIVE THE KING," rather than suffer death; which does not prevent me, however, from demanding that the irremovable, inviolable, and hereditary representative of the nation shall act with the proletaires against the privileged classes; in a word, that the king shall become the leader of the radical party. Thereby we proletaires would gain every thing; and I am sure that, at this price, Louis Philippe might secure to his family the perpetual presidency of the republic. And this is why I think so.
If there existed in France but one great functional inequality, the duty of the functionary being, from one end of the year to the other, to hold full court of savants, artists, soldiers, deputies, inspectors, &c., it is evident that the expenses of the presidency then would be the national expenses; and that, through the reversion of the civil list to the mass of consumers, the great inequality of which I speak would form an exact equation with the whole nation. Of this no economist needs a demonstration. 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 when duty required, or when called by an honorable distinction; and as all conditions would be equal and all functions equally honored, there would be no other emulation than that of merit and virtue. I wish the king of the French could say without shame, "My brother the gardener, my sister-in-law the milk-maid, my son the prince-royal, and my son the blacksmith." His daughter might well be an artist. That would be beautiful, sir; that would be royal; no one but a buffoon could fail to understand it.
In this way, I have come to think that the forms of royalty may be made to harmonize with the requirements of equality, and have given a monarchical form to my republican spirit. I have seen that France contains by no means as many democrats as is generally supposed, and I have compromised with the monarchy. I do not say, however, that, if France wanted a republic, 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 happy to say, sir, that I am a national guard; I have nothing else in the world but that. Because the review is always held at a place which I do not like, and because they have fools for officers whom I am compelled to obey. You see,—and this is not the best of my history,—that, in spite of my conservative opinions, my life is a perpetual sacrifice to the republic.
Nevertheless, I doubt if such simplicity would be agreeable to French vanity, to that inordinate love of distinction and flattery which makes our nation the most frivolous in the world. M. Lamartine, in his grand "Meditation on Bonaparte," calls the French A NATION OF BRUTUSES. We are merely a nation of Narcissuses. Previous to '89, we had the aristocracy of blood; then every bourgeois looked down upon the commonalty, and wished to be a 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 artists, will form new classes. There is a universal and innate desire in this Gallic country for fame and glory. We must have distinctions, be they what they may,—nobility, wealth, talent, beauty, or dress. I suspect MM. Arage and Garnier-Pages of having aristocratic manners, and I picture to myself our great journalists, in their columns so friendly to the people, administering rough kicks to the compositors in their printing offices.
"This man," once said "Le National" in speaking of Carrel, "whom we had proclaimed FIRST CONSUL!... Is it not true that the monarchical principle still lives in the hearts of our democrats, and that they want universal suffrage in order to make themselves kings? Since "Le National" prides itself on holding 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 learned for the consulship. Be it so. Though we have consuls, our position is not much altered. I am ready to yield my share of sovereignty to MM. Armand Marrast and Garnier-Pages, the appointed consuls, provided they will swear on entering upon the duties of their office, to abolish property and not be haughty.
Forever promises! Forever oaths! Why should the people trust in tribunes, when kings perjure themselves? Alas! truth and honesty are no longer, as in the days of King John, in the mouth of princes. A whole senate has been convicted 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 more emperors, no more consuls. Better manage our affairs ourselves than through agents. Better associate our industries than beg from monopolies; and, since the republic cannot dispense with virtues, we should labor for our reform.
This, therefore, is my line of conduct. I preach emancipation to the proletaires; association to the laborers; equality to the wealthy. I push forward the revolution by all means in my power,—the tongue, the pen, the press, by action, and example. My life is a continual apostleship.
Yes, I am a reformer; I say it as I think it, in good faith, and that I may be no longer reproached for my vanity. I wish to convert the world. Very likely this fancy springs from an enthusiastic pride which may have turned to delirium; but it will be admitted at least that I have plenty of company, and that my madness is not monomania. At the present day, 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 Pythagoras. Gregory VII., himself, has risen from the grave together with the evangelists and the apostles; and it may turn out that even I am that slave who, having escaped from his master's house, was forthwith made a bishop and a reformer by St. Paul. As for the virgins and holy women, they are expected daily; at present, we have only Aspasias and courtesans.
Now, as in all diseases, the diagnostic varies according to the temperament, so my madness has its peculiar aspects and distinguishing characteristic.
Reformers, as a general thing, are jealous of their role; they suffer no rivals, they want no partners; they have disciples, but no co-laborers. It is 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, in order that there might be no more sects; and that Christs, Anti-Christs, and false Christs might be forced to understand and agree with each other.
Again, every reformer is a magician, or at least desires to become one. Thus Moses, Jesus Christ, and the apostles, proved their mission by miracles. Mahomet ridiculed miracles after having endeavored to perform them. Fourier, more cunning, promises us wonders 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. Little matters it that they find me dry and austere. I mean to conquer by a bold struggle, or die in the attempt; and whoever shall come to the defence of property, I swear that I will force him to argue like M. Considerant, or philosophize like M. Troplong.
Finally,—and it is here that I differ most from my compeers,—I do not believe it necessary, in order to reach equality, to turn every thing topsy-turvy. To maintain that nothing but an overturn can lead to reform is, in 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 point, the problem of universal association seems to me insolvable. Property is like the dragon which Hercules killed: to destroy it, it must be taken, not by the head, but by the tail,—that is, by profit and interest.
I stop. I have said enough to satisfy any one who can read and understand. The surest way by which the government can baffle intrigues and break up parties is to take possession of science, and point out to the nation, at an already appreciable distance, the rising oriflamme 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 unprincipled and insincere controversy; but the government, which knows this future, leads you thither by a happy and peaceful transition. The present generation will not pass away before France, the guide and model of civilized nations, has regained her rank and legitimate influence."
But, alas! the government itself,—who shall enlighten it? Who can induce it to accept this doctrine of equality, whose terrible but decisive formula the most 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 business to teach and define—would suffice to give full play to public opinion, to change beliefs, and to fix destinies. Will not the three men be found?...
May we hope, or not? What must we think of those who govern us? In the world of sorrow in which the proletaire moves, and where nothing is known of the intentions of power, it must be said that despair prevails. But you, sir,—you, who by function belong to the official world; you, in whom the people recognize one of their noblest friends, and property its most prudent adversary,—what say you of our deputies, our ministers, our king? Do you believe that the authorities 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 conscience to pursue property, to grant it neither peace nor truce, until I see it everywhere execrated. I have not yet published half the things that I have to say concerning the right of domain, nor the best things. Let the knights of property, if there are any who fight otherwise than by retreating, be prepared every day for a new demonstration and accusation; let them enter the arena armed with reason and knowledge, not wrapped up in sophisms, for justice will be done.
"To become enlightened, we must have liberty. That alone suffices; but it must be the liberty to use the reason in regard to all public matters.
"And yet we hear on every hand authorities of all kinds and degrees crying: 'Do not reason!'
"If a distinction is wanted, here is one:—
"The PUBLIC use of the reason always should be free, but the PRIVATE use ought always to be rigidly restricted. By public use, I mean the scientific, literary use; by private, that which may be taken advantage of by civil officials and public functionaries. 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 the right to speak in his capacity of citizen and scholar. He can make an appeal to the public, submit to it his observations on events which occur around him and in the ranks above him, taking care, however, to avoid offences which are punishable.
"Reason, then, as much as you like; only, obey."—Kant: Fragment on the Liberty of Thought and of the Press. Tissot's Translation.
These words of the great philosopher outline for me my duty. I have delayed the reprint of the work entitled "What is Property?" in order that I might lift the discussion to the philosophical height from which ridiculous clamor 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 First Memoir on Property will immediately follow the publication of this letter. Before issuing any thing further, I shall await the observations of my critics, and the co-operation of the friends of the people and of equality.
Hitherto, I have spoken in my own name, and on my own personal responsibility. It was my duty. I was endeavoring to call attention to principles which antiquity could not discover, because it 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 the practical consequences of the facts proclaimed. The position of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR is the only one which I am henceforth fitted to fill, and I shall sum up the case in the name of the PEOPLE.
I am, sir, with all the consideration that I owe to your talent and your character,
Your very humble and most obedient servant,
P. J. PROUDHON,
Pensioner of the Academy of Besancon.
P.S. During the session of April 2, the Chamber of Deputies rejected, by a very large majority, the literary-property bill, BECAUSE IT DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT. Nevertheless, literary 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 the cause of equality. The consequence of the vote of the Chamber is the abolition of capitalistic property,—property incomprehensible, contradictory, impossible, and absurd.
FOOTNOTES:
1 (return)
[ In the French edition of
Proudhon's works, the above sketch of his life is prefixed to the first
volume of his correspondence, but the translator prefers to insert it here
as the best method of introducing the author to the American public.]
2 (return)
[ "An Inquiry into
Grammatical Classifications." By P. J. Proudhon. A treatise which received
honorable mention from the Academy of Inscriptions, May 4, 1839. Out of
print.]
3 (return)
[ "The Utility of the
Celebration of Sunday," &c. By P. J. Proudhon. Besancon, 1839, 12mo;
2d edition, Paris, 1841, 18mo.]
4 (return)
[ Charron, on "Wisdom,"
Chapter xviii.]
5 (return)
[ M. Vivien, Minister of
Justice, before commencing proceedings against the "Memoir upon Property,"
asked the opinion of M. Blanqui; and it was on the strength of the
observations of this honorable academician that he spared a book which had
already excited the indignation of the magistrates. M. Vivien is not the
only official 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 bodies results solely from
the spirit which governs them. Why, for instance, in spite of the virtues
and talents for which they are so noted, are the academies generally
centres of intellectual repression, stupidity, and base intrigue? That
question ought to be proposed by an academy: there would be no lack of
competitors.]
6 (return)
[ In Greek, {GREEK e ncg }
examiner; a philosopher whose business is to seek the truth.]
7 (return)
[ Religion, laws, marriage,
were the privileges of freemen, and, in the beginning, of nobles only. Dii
majorum gentium—gods of the patrician families; jus gentium—right
of nations; that is, of families or nobles. The slave and the plebeian had
no families; their children were treated as the offspring of animals.
BEASTS they were born, BEASTS they must live.]
8 (return)
[ If the chief of the
executive power is responsible, so must the deputies be also. It is
astonishing that this idea has never occurred to any one; it might be made
the subject of an interesting essay. But I declare that I would not, for
all the world, maintain it; the people are yet much too logical for me to
furnish them with arguments.]
9 (return)
[ See De Tocqueville,
"Democracy in the United States;" and Michel Chevalier, "Letters on North
America." Plutarch tells us, "Life of Pericles," that in Athens honest
people were obliged to conceal themselves while studying, fearing they
would be regarded as aspirants for office.]
10 (return)
[ "Sovereignty," according
to Toullier, "is human omnipotence." A materialistic definition: if
sovereignty is any thing, it is a RIGHT not a FORCE or a faculty. And what
is human omnipotence?]
11 (return)
[ The Proudhon here
referred to is J. B. V. Proudhon; a distinguished French jurist, and
distant relative of the Translator.]
12 (return)
[ Here, especially, the
simplicity of our ancestors appears in all its rudeness. After having made
first cousins heirs, where there were no legitimate children, they could
not so divide the property between two different branches as to prevent
the simultaneous existence of extreme wealth and extreme poverty in the
same family. For example:— James, dying, leaves two sons, Peter and
John, heirs of his fortune: James's property is divided equally between
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 contrary to the principle of heredity. Furthermore,
John's children would be poor on account of their number, while their
cousin, being an only child, would be rich, which is contrary to the
principle of equality. If we extend this combined application of two
principles apparently opposed to each other, we shall become convinced
that the right of succession, which is assailed with so little wisdom in
our day, is no obstacle to the maintenance of equality.]
13 (return)
[ Zeus klesios.]
14 (return)
[ Giraud, "Investigations
into the Right of Property among the Romans."]
15 (return)
[ Precarious, from precor,
"I pray;" because the act of concession expressly signified that the lord,
in answer to the prayers of his men or slaves, had granted them permission
to labor.]
16 (return)
[ I cannot conceive how any
one dares to justify the inequality of conditions, by pointing to the base
inclinations and propensities of certain men. Whence comes this shameful
degradation of heart and mind to which so many fall victims, if not from
the misery and abjection into which property plunges them?]
17 (return)
[ How many citizens are
needed to support a professor of philosophy?—Thirty-five millions.
How many for an economist?—Two billions. And for a literary man, who
is neither a savant, nor an artist, nor a philosopher, nor an economist,
and who writes newspaper novels?—None.]
18 (return)
[ There is an error in the
author's calculation here; but the translator, feeling sure that the
reader will understand Proudhon's meaning, prefers not to alter his
figures.—Translator.]
19 (return)
[ Hoc inter se differunt
onanismus et manuspratio, nempe quod haec a solitario exercetur, ille
autem a duobus reciprocatur, masculo scilicet et faemina. Porro foedam
hanc onanismi venerem ludentes uxoria mariti habent nunc omnigm
suavissimam]
20 (return)
[ Polyandry,—plurality
of husbands.]
21 (return)
[ Infanticide has just been
publicly advocated in England, in a pamphlet written by a disciple of
Malthus. He proposes an ANNUAL MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS in all families
containing more children 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
children. Mothers would resort to this delightful spot to dream of the
happiness of these little angels, and would return, quite comforted, to
give birth to others, to be buried in their turn.]
22 (return)
[ To perform an act of
benevolence towards one's neighbor is called, in Hebrew, to do justice; in
Greek, to take compassion or pity ({GREEK n n f e },from which 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 these various expressions: the first signifies duty; the second
only sympathy; the third, affection, a matter of choice, not an
obligation; the fourth, caprice.]
23 (return)
[ I mean here by equite
what the Latins called humanitas,— that is, the kind of sociability
which is peculiar to man. Humanity, gentle and courteous to all, knows how
to distinguish ranks, virtues, and capacities without injury to any.]
24 (return)
[ Justice and equite never
have been understood.]
25 (return)
[ Between woman and man
there may exist love, passion, ties of custom, and the like; but there is
no real society. Man and woman are not companions. The difference of the
sexes places a barrier between them, like that placed between animals by a
difference of race. Consequently, far from advocating what is now called
the emancipation of woman, I should incline, rather, if there were no
other alternative, to exclude her from society.]
26 (return)
[ "The strong-box of Cosmo
de Medici was the grave of Florentine liberty," said M. Michelet to the
College of France.]
27 (return)
[ "My right is my lance and
my buckler." General de Brossard said, like Achilles: "I get wine, gold,
and women with my lance and my buckler."]
28 (return)
[ It would be interesting
and profitable to review the authors who have written on usury, or, to use
the gentler expression which some prefer, lendingat interest. The
theologians always have opposed usury; but, since they have admitted
always the legitimacy of rent, and since rent is evidently identical with
interest, they have lost themselves in a labyrinth of subtle distinctions,
and have finally reached 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 is from the earth." How, on{sic} such a doctrine,
condemn lending at interest? how justify the Gospel, which expressly
forbids usury? The difficulty of theologians is a very serious one. Unable
to refute the economical demonstrations, which rightly assimilate interest
to rent, they no longer dare to condemn interest, and they can say only
that there must be such a thing as usury, since the Gospel forbids it.]
29 (return)
[ "I preach the Gospel, I
live by the Gospel," said the Apostle; meaning thereby that he lived by
his labor. The Catholic clergy prefer to live by property. The struggles
in the communes of the middle ages between the priests and bishops 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 received by the clergy is not a salary, but an indemnity for goods of
which they were once proprietors, and which were taken from them in '89 by
the Third Estate. The clergy prefer to live by the right of increase
rather than by labor.]
30 (return)
[ The meaning ordinarily
attached to the word "anarchy" is absence of principle, absence of rule;
consequently, it has been regarded as synonymous with "disorder."]
31 (return)
[ If such ideas are ever
forced into the minds of the people, it will be by representative
government and the tyranny of talkers. Once science, thought, and speech
were characterized by the same expression. To designate a thoughtful and a
learned man, they said, "a man quick to speak and powerful in discourse."
For a long time, speech has been abstractly distinguished from science 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 is a sonorous bell, whom the least shock suffices to set in
perpetual motion. With the talker, the flow of speech is always directly
proportional to the poverty of thought. Talkers govern the world; they
stun us, they bore us, they worry us, they suck our blood, and laugh at
us. As for the savants, they keep silence: if they wish to say a word,
they are cut short. Let them write.]
32 (return)
[ libertas, librare,
libratio, libra,—liberty, to liberate, libration, balance
(pound),—words which have a common derivation. Liberty is the
balance of rights and duties. To make a man free is to balance him with
others,—that is, to put him or their level.]
33 (return)
[ In a monthly publication,
the first number of which has just appeared under the name of
"L'Egalitaire," self-sacrifice is laid down as a principle of equality.
This is a confusion of ideas. Self- sacrifice, taken alone, is the last
degree of inequality. To seek equality in self-sacrifice is to confess
that equality is against nature. Equality must be based 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'Egalitaire" is an
excellent example. Unfortunately, it can have no effect. What would you
reply, indeed, to a man who should say to you, "I do not want to sacrifice
myself"? Is he to be compelled to do so? When self-sacrifice is forced, it
becomes oppression, slavery, the exploitation of man by man. Thus have the
proletaires sacrificed themselves to property.]
34 (return)
[ The disciples of Fourier
have long seemed to me the most advanced of all modern socialists, and
almost the only ones worthy of the name. If they had understood the nature
of their task, spoken to the people, awakened their sympathies, and kept
silence when they did not understand; if they had made less extravagant
pretensions, and had shown more respect for public intelligence,—perhaps
the reform would now, thanks to them, be in progress. But why are these
earnest reformers continually bowing to power and wealth,—that is,
to all that is anti- reformatory? How, in a thinking age, can they fail to
see that the world must be converted by DEMONSTRATION, 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 infallibility of a man becomes thereby
incapable of instructing others. Whoever denies his own reason will soon
proscribe free thought. The phalansterians would not fail to do it if they
had the power. Let them condescend to reason, let them proceed
systematically, let them give us demonstrations instead of revelations,
and we will listen willingly. Then let them organize manufactures,
agriculture, and commerce; let them make labor attractive, and the most
humble functions honorable, and our praise shall be theirs. Above all, let
them throw off that Illuminism which gives them the appearance of
impostors or dupes, rather than believers and apostles.]
35 (return)
[ Individual possession is
no obstacle to extensive cultivation and unity of exploitation. If I have
not spoken of the drawbacks arising from small estates, it is because I
thought it useless 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, have
failed to see that it is caused entirely by property; above all, that they
have not perceived that their plan for mobilizing the soil is a first step
towards the abolition of property.]
36 (return)
[ In the Chamber of
Deputies, during the session of the fifth of January, 1841, M. Dufaure
moved to renew the expropriation bill, on the ground of public utility.]
37 (return)
[ "What is Property?" Chap.
IV., Ninth Proposition.]
38 (return)
[ Tu cognovisti
sessionem meam et resurrectionem meam. Psalm 139.]
39 (return)
[ The emperor Nicholas has
just compelled all the manufacturers in his empire to maintain, at their
own expense, within their establishments, small hospitals for the
reception of sick workmen,—the number of beds in each being
proportional 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 be an attack upon property,—a thing
hardly conceivable even in Russia, Scythia, or among the Cossacks; but
among us, the oldest sons of civilization!... I fear very much that this
quality of age may prove in the end a mark of decrepitude.]
40 (return)
[ Course of M. Blanqui.
Lecture of Nov. 27,1840.]
41 (return)
[ In "Mazaniello," the
Neapolitan fisherman demands, amid the applause of the galleries, that a
tax be levied upon luxuries.]
42 (return)
[ Seme le champ,
proletaire; C'est l l'oisif qui recoltera.]
43 (return)
[ "In some countries, the
enjoyment of certain political rights depends upon the amount of property.
But, in these same countries, property is expressive, rather than
attributive, of the qualifications necessary to the exercise of these
rights. It is rather a conjectural proof than the cause of these
qualifications."—Rossi: Treatise on Penal Law.]
44 (return)
[ Lecture of December 22.]
45 (return)
[ Lecture of Jan. 15,
1841.]
46 (return)
[ Lecture of Jan. 15,
1841.]
47 (return)
[ MM. Blanqui and
Wolowski.]
48 (return)
[ Subject proposed by the
Fourth Class of the Institute, the Academy of Moral and Political
Sciences: "What would be the effect upon the working-class of the
organization of labor, according to the modern ideas of association?"]
49 (return)
[ Subject proposed by the
Academy of Besancon: "The economical and moral consequences in France, up
to the present time, and those which seem likely to appear in future, of
the law concerning the equal division of hereditary property between the
children."]
50 (return)
[ {GREEK, ?n n '},—greater
property. The Vulgate translates it avaritia.]
51 (return)
[ Similar or analogous
customs have existed among all nations. Consult, among other works,
"Origin of French Law," by M. Michelet; and "Antiquities of German Law,"
by Grimm.]
52 (return)
[ Dees hominesque
testamur, nos arma neque contra patriam cepisse neque quo periculum aliis
faceremus, sed uti corpora nostra ab injuria tuta forent, qui miseri,
egentes, violentia atque crudelitate foeneraterum, plerique patriae, sed
omncsfarna atque fortunis expertes sumus; neque cuiquam nostrum licuit,
more majorum, lege uti, neque, amisso patrimonio, libferum corpus habere.—Sallus:
Bellum Catilinarium.]
53 (return)
[ Fifty, sixty, and eighty
per cent.—Course of M. Blanqui.]
54 (return)
[ Episcopi plurimi, quos
et hortamento esse oportet caeteris et exemplo, divina prouratione
contempta, procuratores rerum saeularium fieri, derelicta cathedra, plebe
leserta, per alienas provincias oberrantes, negotiationis quaestuosae
nundinas au uucu-, pari, esurientibus in ecclesia fratribus habere
argentum largitur velle, fundos insidi.sis fraudibus rapere, usuris
multiplicantibus faenus augere.—Cyprian: De Lapsis. {—NOTE:
what does this refer to? This is at bottom of pg 341 in MS} In this
passage, St. Cyprian alludes to lending on mortgages and to compound
interest.]
55 (return)
[ "Inquiries concerning
Property among the Romans."]
56 (return)
[ "Its acquisitive nature
works rapidly in the sleep of the law. It is ready, at the word, to absorb
every thing. Witness the famous equivocation about the ox-hide which, when
cut up into thongs, was large enough to enclose the site of Carthage....
The legend has reappeared several times since Dido.... 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 land, to give
it the form of heaven.... In his titanic intoxication, he describes
property in the very terms which he employs in describing the Almighty—fundus
optimus maximus.... He shall make it his couch, and they shall be
separated no more,—{GREEK, ' nf g h g g."}—Michelet:Origin of
French Law.]
57 (return)
[ M. Guizot denies that
Christianity alone is entitled to the glory of the abolition of slavery.
"To this end," he says, "many causes were necessary,—the evolution
of other ideas and other principles 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, or whether at least the Christian spirit had not penetrated and
thus fructified them. Most of the emancipation charters begin with these
words: "For the love of God and the salvation of my soul."]
58 (return)
[ Weregild,—the
fine paid for the murder of a man. So much for a count, so much for a
baron, so much for a freeman, so much for a priest; for a slave, nothing.
His value was restored to the proprietor.]
59 (return)
[ The spirit of despotism
and monopoly which animated the communes has not escaped the attention of
historians. "The formation of the commoners' associations," says Meyer,
"did not spring from the true spirit 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 other; and this spirit increased to such an
extent that the King of England, Henry V., having established a university
at Caen, in 1432, the city and university of Paris opposed the
registration of the edict."]
60 (return)
[ Feudalism was, in spirit
and in its providential destiny, a long protest of the human personality
against the monkish communism with which Europe, in the middle ages, was
overrun. After the orgies of Pagan selfishness, society—carried to
the opposite extreme by the Christian 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 the fourth century under different names and in
different countries. Modern civilization is indebted to feudalism for the
definitive establishment of the person, of marriage, of the family, and of
country. (See, on this subject, Guizot, "History of Civilization in
Europe.")]
61 (return)
[ This was made evident in
July, 1830, and the years which followed it, when the electoral
bourgeoisie effected a revolution in order to get control over the king,
and suppressed the emeutes in order to restrain the people. The
bourgeoisie, through the jury, the magistracy, its position in the army,
and its municipal despotism, governs both royalty and the people. It is
the bourgeoisie which, more than any other class, is conservative and
retrogressive. It is the 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 reserving
scepticism and indifference for themselves; which attack personal
government, and favor the denial of the electoral privilege to those who
have no property. The bourgeoisie will accept any thing rather than the
emancipation of the proletariat. As soon as it thinks its privileges
threatened, it will unite with royalty; and who does not know that at this
very moment these two antagonists have suspended their quarrels?... It has
been a question of property.]
62 (return)
[ The same opinion was
recently expressed from the tribune by one of our most honorable Deputies,
M. Gauguier. "Nature," said he, "has not endowed man with landed
property." Changing the adjective LANDED, which designates only a species
into CAPITALISTIC, which denotes the genus,—M. Gauguier made an
egalitaire profession of faith.]
63 (return)
[ A professor of
comparative legislation, M. Lerminier, has gone still farther. He has
dared to say that the nation took from the clergy all their possessions,
not because 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 were given you. In your hands they were
at once an instrument and a reward. But you do not now deserve them, for
you long since ceased to civilize any thing whatever...."]
64 (return)
[ "Treatise on
Prescription."]
65 (return)
[ "Origin of French Law."]
66 (return)
[ To honor one's parents,
to be grateful to one's benefactors, to neither kill nor steal,—truths
of inward sensation. To obey God rather than men, to render to each that
which is 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 conscience, and imply only a
simple act of the soul; the second are perceived by the reason, and imply
comparison and relation. In short, the former are sentiments, the latter
are ideas.]
67 (return)
[ Armand Carrel would have
favored the fortification of the capital. "Le National" has said, again
and again, placing the name of its old editor by the side of the names of
Napoleon and Vauban. What signifies this exhumation of an anti-popular
politician? It signifies that Armand Carrel wished to make government an
individual and irremovable, but elective, property, and 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, after 1830, would never support the patriots. "Do you answer me
with a few regiments?" he asked. Armand Carrel regarded the army—the
military power—as the basis of law and government. This man
undoubtedly had a moral sense within him, but he surely had no sense of
justice. Were he still in this world, I declare it boldly, liberty would
have no greater enemy than Carrel.]
68 (return)
[ In a very short article,
which was read by M. Wolowski, M. Louis Blanc declares, in substance, that
he is not a communist (which I easily believe); 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 with its abuses. When Voltaire
overthrew Christianity, he repeatedly avowed that he had no spite against
religion, but only against its abuses.]
69 (return)
[ The property fever is at
its height among writers and artists, and it is curious to see the
complacency with which our legislators and men of letters cherish this
devouring passion. An artist sells a picture, and then, the merchandise
delivered, assumes to prevent the purchaser from selling engravings, under
the pretext that he, the painter, in selling the original, has not sold
his DESIGN. A dispute arises between the amateur and the artist in regard
to both the fact and the law. M. Villemain, the Minister of Public
Instruction, being consulted as to this particular case, 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 defender
of literary property, sure of being understood and sustained by a set of
loafers, the disgrace of literature and the plague of public morals. Why,
then, does M. Villemain feel so strong an interest in setting himself up
as the chief of the literary classes, in playing for their benefit the
role of Trissotin in the councils of the State, and in becoming the
accomplice and associate of a band of profligates,—soi-disant
men of letters,—who for more than ten years have labored with such
deplorable success to ruin public spirit, and corrupt the heart by warping
the mind?]
70 (return)
[ M. Leroux has been highly
praised in a review for having defended property. I do not know whether
the industrious encyclopedist is pleased with the praise, but I know very
well that in his place I should mourn for reason and for truth.]
71 (return)
[ "Impartial," of
Besancon.]
72 (return)
[ The Arians deny the
divinity of Christ. The Semi-Arians differ from the Arians only by a few
subtle distinctions. M. Pierre Leroux, who regards Jesus as a man, but
claims that the Spirit of God was infused into him, is a true Semi-Arian.
The Manicheans admit two co-existent and eternal principles,—God and matter, spirit and flesh, light and darkness, good and evil; but, unlike the Phalansterians, who pretend to reconcile 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 them, however, from indulging in all the carnal pleasures which the intensest lust can conceive of. In this last particular, the tendency of the Fourieristic morality is quite Manichean.
The Gnostics do not differ from the early Christians. As their name indicates, they regarded themselves as inspired. Fourier, who held peculiar ideas concerning the visions of somnambulists, and who believed in the possibility of developing the magnetic power to such an extent as to enable us to commune with invisible beings, might, if he were living, pass also for a Gnostic.
The Adamites attend mass entirely naked, from motives of chastity. Jean Jacques Rousseau, who took the sleep of the senses for chastity, and who saw in modesty only a refinement of pleasure, inclined towards Adamism. I know such a sect, whose members usually celebrate their mysteries in the costume of Venus coming from the bath.
The Pre-Adamites believe that men existed before the first man. I once met a Pre-Adamite. True, he was deaf and a Fourierist.
The Pelagians deny grace, and attribute all the merit of good works to liberty. The Fourierists, who teach that man's nature and passions are good, are reversed Pelagians; they give all to grace, and nothing to liberty.
The Socinians, deists in all other respects, admit an original revelation. Many people are Socinians to-day, who do not suspect it, and who regard their opinions as new.
The Neo-Christians are those simpletons who admire Christianity because it has produced bells and cathedrals. Base in soul, corrupt in heart, dissolute in mind and senses, the Neo-Christians seek especially after the external form, and admire religion, as they love women, for its physical beauty. They believe in a coming revelation, as well as a transfiguration of Catholicism. They will sing masses at the grand spectacle in the phalanstery.]
73 (return)
[ It should be understood
that the above refers only to the moral and political doctrines of
Fourier,—doctrines which, like all philosophical and religious
systems, have their 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, natural history,
physiology, and psychology, I leave to the attention of those who would
think it their duty to seriously refute the fables of Blue Beard and the
Ass's Skin.]
74 (return)
[ A writer for the radical
press, M. Louis Raybaud, said, in the preface to his "Studies of
Contemporary Reformers:" "Who does not know that morality is relative?
Aside from a few grand sentiments which are strikingly instinctive, the
measure of human acts varies with nations and climates, and only
civilization—the progressive education of the race—can lead to
a universal morality.... The absolute 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 pass
upon contemporary reformers? M. Raybaud thought it would seem wise to
repeat an old impertinence of the legist, and that may serve him for an
excuse. We all have these weaknesses. But I am surprised that a man of so
much intelligence as M. Raybaud, who STUDIES SYSTEMS, fails to see the
very thing he ought first to recognize,—namely, that systems are the
progress of the mind towards the absolute.]
75 (return)
[ The electoral reform, it
is continually asserted, is not an END, but a MEANS. Undoubtedly; but
what, then, is the end? Why not furnish an unequivocal explanation of its
object? How can the people choose their representatives, unless they know
in advance the purpose for which they choose them, and the object of the
commission which they entrust to them? But, it is said, the very business
of those chosen by the people is to find out the object of the reform.
That is a quibble. What is to hinder these persons, who are to be elected
in future, from first seeking for this object, and then, when they have
found it, from communicating it to the people? The reformers have well
said, that, while the object of the electoral reform remains in the least
indefinite, it will be only a 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 bayonet is intelligent, every savage is
civilized, every slave is free." In its vague generality, the reformatory
petition is the weakest of abstractions, or the highest form of political
treason. Consequently, the enlightened patriots distrust and despise each
other. The most radical writer of the time,—he whose economical and
social theories are, without comparison, the most advanced,—M.
Leroux, has taken a bold stand against universal suffrage and democratic
government, and has written an exceedingly keen criticism of J. J.
Rousseau. That is undoubtedly the reason why M. Leroux is no longer the
philosopher of "Le National." That journal, like Napoleon, does not like
men of ideas. Nevertheless, "Le National" ought to know that he who fights
against ideas will perish by ideas.]