|
Preface
The following letter served as
a preface to the first edition of this memoir: --
"To the Members of the Academy of Besançon.
"PARIS,
June 30, 1840.
"GENTLEMEN,
-- In the course of your debate of the 9th of May, 1833, in
regard to the triennial
pension established
by Madame Suard, you expressed the following wish: --
" `The
Academy requests the titulary to present it annually, during
the first fortnight
in July, with a succinct and logical
statement of the various studies which he has pursued during
the year which has just expired.'
"I
now propose, gentlemen, to discharge this duty.
"When
I solicited your votes, I boldly avowed my intention to bend
my efforts to the discovery
of some means of ameliorating
the physical, moral, and intellectual condition of the
mere numerous and poorer classes. This idea, foreign as it may have seemed
to the object of my candidacy, you received favorably; and, by
the precious distinction with which it has been your pleasure
to honor me, you changed this formal offer into an inviolable
and sacred obligation. Thenceforth I understood with how worthy
and honorable a society I had to deal: my regard for its enlightenment,
my recognition of its benefits, my enthusiasm for its glory,
were unbounded.
"Convinced
at once that, in order to break loose from the beaten
paths of opinions and
systems, it was necessary to
proceed in my study of man and society by scientific methods,
and in a rigorous manner, I devoted one year to philology
and grammar; linguistics, or the natural history of speech,
being,
of all the sciences, that which was best suited to the
character of my mind, seemed to bear the closest relation
to the researches
which I was about to commence. A treatise, written at this
period upon one of the most interesting questions of comparative
grammar,1
if it did not reveal the astonishing success, at least
bore witness to the thoroughness, of my labors.
"Since
that time, metaphysics and moral science have been my only
studies; my perception
of the fact that these sciences,
though badly defined as to their object and not confined to their
sphere, are, like the natural sciences, susceptible of demonstration
and certainty, has already rewarded my efforts.
"But,
gentlemen, of all the masters whom I have followed, to none
do I owe so much as to
you. Your co-operation, your programmes,
your instructions, in agreement with my secret wishes and most
cherished hopes, have at no time failed to enlighten me and to
point out my road; this memoir on property is the child of your
thought.
"In 1838, the Academy of Besançon
proposed the following question: To what causes must we attribute
the continually
increasing number of suicides, and what are the proper means
for arresting the effects of this moral contagion?
"Thereby
it asked, in less general terms, what was the cause of the
social evil, and what
was its remedy? You admitted
that yourselves, gentlemen when your committee reported that
the competitors had enumerated with exactness the immediate and
particular causes of suicide, as well as the means of preventing
each of them; but that from this enumeration, chronicled with
more or less skill, no positive information had been gained,
either as to the primary cause of the evil, or as to its remedy.
"In
1839, your programme, always original and varied in its academical
expression, became
more exact. The investigations
of 1838 had pointed out, as the causes or rather as the symptoms
of the social malady, the neglect of the principles of religion
and morality, the desire for wealth, the passion for enjoyment,
and political disturbances. All these data were embodied by you
in a single proposition: The utility of the celebration of Sunday
as regards hygiene, morality, and social and political relations.
"In
a Christian tongue you asked, gentlemen, what was the
true system of society. A competitor2 dared
to maintain, and believed that he had proved, that the institution of a day of rest at weekly intervals
is inseparably bound up with a political system based on the
equality of conditions; that without equality this institution
is an anomaly and an impossibility: that equality alone can
revive this ancient and mysterious keeping of the seventh day.
This argument did not meet with your approbation, since, without
denying the relation pointed out by the competitor, you judged,
and rightly gentlemen, that the principle of equality of conditions
not being demonstrated, the ideas of the author were nothing
more than hypotheses.
"Finally,
gentlemen, this fundamental principle of equality you presented
for competition
in the following terms: 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.
"Instead
of confining one to common places without breadth or significance,
it seems
to me that your question should be
developed as follows: --
"If
the law has been able to render the right of heredity common
to all the children
of one father, can it not render it
equal for all his grandchildren and great-grandchildren?
"If
the law no longer heeds the age of any member of the family,
can it not, by the right
of heredity, cease to heed it
in the race, in the tribe, in the nation?
"Can
equality, by the right of succession, be preserved between
citizens, as well as between
cousins and brothers? In
a word, can the principle of succession become a principle of
equality?
"To
sum up all these ideas in one inclusive question: What is the
principle of heredity?
What are the foundations of
inequality? What is property?
"Such,
gentlemen, is the object of the memoir that I offer you to
day.
"If
I have rightly grasped the object of your thought; if I succeed
in bringing to light
a truth which is indisputable,
but, from causes which I am bold enough to claim to have explained,
has always been misunderstood; if by an infallible method of
investigation, I establish the dogma of equality of conditions;
if I determine the principle of civil law, the essence of justice,
and the form of society; if I annihilate property forever, --
to you, gentlemen, will redound all the glory, for it is to your
aid and your inspiration that I owe it.
"My
purpose in this work is the application of method to the problems
of philosophy; every
other intention is foreign
to and even abusive of it.
"I
have spoken lightly of jurisprudence: I had the right; but
I should be unjust did I not distinguish between this pretended
science and the men who practise
it. Devoted to studies both laborious and severe, entitled in all respects
to the esteem of their fellow-citizens by their knowledge and
eloquence our legists
deserve but one reproach, that of an excessive deference to arbitrary laws.
"I
have been pitiless in my criticism of the economists: for them
I confess that, in general,
I have no liking. The arrogance
and the emptiness of their writings, their impertinent pride
and their unwarranted blunders, have disgusted me. Whoever, knowing
them, pardons them, may read them.
"I
have severely blamed the learned Christian Church: it was my
duty. This blame results
from the facts which I call
attention to: why has the Church decreed concerning things which
it does not understand? The Church has erred in dogma and in
morals; physics and mathematics testify against her. It may be
wrong for me to say it, but surely it is unfortunate for Christianity
that it is true. To restore religion, gentlemen, it is necessary
to condemn the Church.
"Perhaps
you will regret, gentlemen, that, in giving all my attention
to method and evidence,
I have too much neglected
form and style: in vain should I have tried to do better. Literary
hope and faith I have none. The nineteenth century is, in my
eyes, a genesic era, in which new principles are elaborated,
but in which nothing that is written shall endure. That is the
reason, in my opinion, why, among so many men of talent, France
to-day counts not one great writer. In a society like ours, to
seek for literary glory seems to me an anachronism. Of what use
is it to invoke an ancient sibyl when a muse is on the eve of
birth? Pitiable actors in a tragedy nearing its end, that which
it behooves us to do is to precipitate the catastrophe. The most
deserving among us is he who plays best this part. Well, I no
longer aspire to this sad success!
"Why
should I not confess it, gentlemen? I have aspired to your
suffrages and sought the title of your pensioner, hating
all which exists and full of projects for its destruction;
I shall finish this investigation in a spirit of calm and
philosophical
resignation. I have derived more peace from the knowledge
of the truth, than anger from the feeling of oppression;
and the
most precious fruit that I could wish to gather from this
memoir would be the inspiration of my readers with that tranquillity
of soul which arises from the clear perception of evil
and its
cause, and which is much more powerful than passion and
enthusiasm. My hatred of privilege and human authority was
unbounded; perhaps
at times I have been guilty, in my indignation, of confounding
persons and things; at present I can only despise and complain;
to cease to hate I only needed to know.
"It
is for you now, gentlemen, whose mission and character
are the proclamation of the truth,
it is for you to instruct
the people, and to tell them for what they ought to hope
and what they ought to fear. The people, incapable as yet
of sound
judgment as to what is best for them, applaud indiscriminately
the most opposite ideas, provided that in them they get
a taste of flattery: to them the laws of thought are like
the confines
of the possible; to-day they can no more distinguish between
a savant and a sophist, than formerly they could tell a
physician from a sorcerer. `Inconsiderately accepting, gathering
together,
and accumulating everything that is new, regarding all
reports as true and indubitable, at the breath or ring of
novelty they
assemble like bees at the sound of a basin.'3
"May
you, gentlemen, desire equality as I myself desire it; may
you, for the eternal happiness
of our country, become
its propagators and its heralds; may I be the last of your pensioners!
Of all the wishes that I can frame, that, gentlemen, is the most
worthy of you and the most honorable for me.
"I
am, with the profoundest respect and the most earnest gratitude,
"Your
pensioner,
"P.
J. PROUDHON."
Two months after the receipt of this letter, the Academy, in
its debate of August 24th, replied to the address of its pensioner
by a note, the text of which I give below: --
"A member calls the attention of the Academy to a pamphlet,
published last June by the titulary of the Suard pension, entitled, "What
is property?" and dedicated by the author to the Academy.
He is of the opinion that the society owes it to justice, to
example, and to its own dignity, to publicly disavow all responsibility
for the anti-social doctrines contained in this publication.
In consequence he demands:
"1.
That the Academy disavow and condemn, in the most formal
manner, the work of the Suard pensioner, as having been
published without its assent, and as attributing to
it opinions
diametrically opposed to the principles of each of
its members;
"2.
That the pensioner be charged, in case he should publish
a second edition of his
book, to omit the dedication;
"3.
That this judgment of the Academy be placed upon the records.
"These
three propositions, put to vote, are adopted."
After this ludicrous decree, which its authors thought to render
powerful by giving it the form of a contradiction, I can only
beg the reader not to measure the intelligence of my compatriots
by that of our Academy.
While
my patrons in the social and political sciences were fulminating
anathemas against my
brochure, a man, who was a stranger
to Franche-Comté, who did not know me, who might even
have regarded himself as personally attacked by the too sharp
judgment which I had passed upon the economists, a publicist
as learned as he was modest, loved by the people whose sorrows
he felt, honored by the power which he sought to enlighten without
flattering or disgracing it, M. Blanqui -- member of the Institute,
professor of political economy, defender of property -- took
up my defence before his associates and before the ministry,
and saved me from the blows of a justice which is always blind,
because it is always ignorant.
It seems to me that the reader will peruse with pleasure the
letter which M. Blanqui did me the honor to write to me upon
the publication of my second memoir, a letter as honorable to
its author as it is flattering to him to whom it is addressed.
"PARIS,
May 1, 1841.
"MONSIEUR,--I
hasten to thank you for forwarding to me your
second memoir upon property. I have read it with all the
interest that an acquaintance with the first would naturally
inspire. I am very glad that you have modified somewhat the
rudeness of form which gave to a work of such gravity the
manner
and appearance of a pamphlet; for you quite frightened me,
sir,
and your talent was needed to reassure me in regard to your
intentions. One does not expend so much real knowledge with
the
purpose of inflaming his country. This proposition, now
coming into notice--property is robbery! --was
of a nature to
repel from your book even those serious minds who do not
judge by
appearances, had you persisted in maintaining it in its rude
simplicity. But if you have softened the form, you are none
the
less faithful to the ground-work of your doctrines; and although
you have done me the honor to give me a share in this perilous
teaching, I cannot accept a partnership which, as far as
talent
goes, would surely be a credit to me, but which would compromise
me in all other respects.
"I
agree with you in one thing only; namely, that all kinds
of
property get too frequently abused in this world. But I do
not
reason from the abuse to the abolition,--an heroic remedy
too
much like death, which cures all evils. I will go farther:
I
will confess that, of all abuses, the most hateful to me
are
those of property; but once more, there is a remedy for this
evil
without violating it, all the more without destroying it.
If the
present laws allow abuse, we can reconstruct them. Our civil
code is not the Koran; it is not wrong to examine it. Change,
then, the laws which govern the use of property, but be sparing
of anathemas; for, logically, where is the honest man whose
hands
are entirely clean? Do you think that one can be a robber
without knowing it, without wishing it, without suspecting
it?
Do you not admit that society in its present state, like
every
man, has in its constitution all kinds of virtues and vices
inherited from our ancestors? Is property, then, in your
eyes a
thing so simple and so abstract that you can re-knead and
equalize it, if I may so speak, in your metaphysical mill?
One
who has said as many excellent and practical things as occur
in
these two beautiful and paradoxical improvisations of yours
cannot be a pure and unwavering utopist. You are too well
acquainted with the economical and academical phraseology
to play
with the hard words of revolutions. I believe, then, that
you
have handled property as Rousseau, eighty years ago, handled
letters, with a magnificent and poetical display of wit and
knowledge. Such, at least, is my opinion.
"That
is what I said to the Institute at the time when I
presented my report upon your book. I knew that they wished
to
proceed against you in the courts; you perhaps do not know
by how
narrow a chance I succeeded in preventing them. What chagrin
I should always have felt, if the king's counsel, that is
to say,
the intellectual executioner, had followed in my very tracks
to
attack your book and annoy your person! I actually passed
two
terrible nights, and I succeeded in restraining the secular
arm
only by showing that your book was an academical dissertation,
and not the manifesto of an incendiary. Your style is too
lofty
ever to be of service to the madmen who in discussing the
gravest
questions of our social order, use paving-stones as their
weapons. But see to it, sir, that ere long they do not come,
in
spite of you, to seek for ammunition in this formidable arsenal,
and that your vigorous metaphysics falls not into the hands
of
some sophist of the market-place, who might discuss the question
in the presence of a starving audience: we should have pillage
for conclusion and peroration.
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.
" I
feel as deeply as you, sir, the abuses which you point
out;
but I have so great an affection for order,--not that common
and
strait-laced order with which the police are satisfied, but
the
majestic and imposing order of human societies,--that I sometimes
find myself embarrassed in attacking certain abuses. I like
to
rebuild with one hand when I am compelled to destroy with
the
other. In pruning an old tree, we guard against destruction
of
the buds and fruit. You know that as well as any one. You
are a
wise and learned man; you have a thoughtful mind. The terms
by
which you characterize the fanatics of our day are strong
enough
to reassure the most suspicious imaginations as to your
intentions; but you conclude in favor of the abolition of
property! You wish to abolish the most powerful motor of
the
human mind; you attack the paternal sentiment in its sweetest
illusions; with one word you arrest the formation of capital,
and
we build henceforth upon the sand instead of on a rock. That
I
cannot agree to; and for that reason I have criticised your
book,
so full of beautiful pages, so brilliant with knowledge and
fervor!
"I
wish, sir, that my impaired health would permit me to examine
with you, page by page, the memoir which you have done me
the
honor to address to me publicly and personally; I think I
could
offer some important criticisms. For the moment, I must content
myself with thanking you for the kind words in which you
have
seen fit to speak of me. We each possess the merit of sincerity;
I desire also the merit of prudence. You know how deep-seated
is
the disease under which the working-people are suffering;
I know
how many noble hearts beat under those rude garments, and
I feel
an irresistible and fraternal sympathy with the thousands
of
brave people who rise early in the morning to labor, to pay
their
taxes, and to make our country strong. I try to serve and
enlighten them, whereas some endeavor to mislead them. You
have
not written directly for them. You have issued two magnificent
manifestoes, the second more guarded than the first; issue
a
third more guarded than the second, and you will take high
rank
in science, whose first precept is calmness and impartiality.
"Farewell,
sir! No man's esteem for another can exceed mine for
you.
"BLANQUI"
I should certainly take some exceptions to this noble and eloquent
letter; but I confess that I am more inclined to realize the
prediction with which it terminates than to augment needlessly
the number of my antagonists. So much controversy fatigues and
wearies me. The intelligence expended in the warfare of words
is like that employed in battle: it is intelligence wasted. M.
Blanqui acknowledges that property is abused in many harmful
ways; I call property the sum these abuses exclusively. To each
of us property seems a polygon whose angles need knocking off;
but, the operation performed, M. Blanqui maintains that the figure
will still be a polygon (an hypothesis admitted in mathematics,
although not proven), while I consider that this figure will
be a circle. Honest people can at least understand one another.
For the rest, I allow that, in the present state of the question,
the mind may legitimately hesitate before deciding in favor of
the abolition of property. To gain the victory for one's cause,
it does not suffice simply to overthrow a principle generally recognized, which has the indisputable merit of systematically
recapitulating our political theories; it is also necessary
to establish the opposite principle, and to formulate the system
which must proceed from it. Still further, it is necessary
to show the method by which the new system will satisfy all
the moral and political needs which induced the establishment
of the first. On the following conditions, then, of subsequent
evidence, depends the correctness of my preceding arguments:
--
The discovery of a system of absolute equality in which all
existing institutions, save property, or the sum of the abuses
of property, not only may find a place, but may themselves serve
as instruments of equality: individual liberty, the division
of power, the public ministry, the jury system, administrative
and judicial organization, the unity and completeness of instruction,
marriage, the family, heredity in direct and collateral succession,
the right of sale and exchange, the right to make a will, and
even birthright, -- a system which, better than property, guarantees
the formation of capital and keeps up the courage of all; which,
from a superior point of view, explains, corrects, and completes
the theories of association hitherto proposed, from Plato and
Pythagoras to Babeuf, Saint Simon, and Fourier; a system, finally,
which, serving as a means of transition, is immediately applicable.
A work so vast requires, I am aware, the united efforts of
twenty Montesquieus; nevertheless, if it is not given to a single
man to finish, a single one can commence, the enterprise. The
road that he shall traverse will suffice to show the end and
assure the result.
 Table
of Contents .........................,,,,,..................Front
Matter ..  1st
Memoir - Ch. 1
CLICK
HERE TO DISCUSS THIS BOOK
Footnotes
- "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.
- "The
Utility of the Celebration of Sunday," &c. By P.
J. Proudhon. Besançon, 1839, 12mo; 2d edition,
Paris, 1841, 18mo.
- Charron, on "Wisdom," Chapter xviii.
|
