what is property-第71章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


nd；　if　to　prove　my　assertion　is　an　offence　against　you；　I　am　guilty　of　it；〃　immediately　the　listener　opens　his　ears；　he　is　all　attention；　and；　if　I　do　not　succeed　in　convincing　him；　at　least　I　give　his　thought　an　impulse；　and　set　him　the　wholesome　example　of　doubt　and　free　examination。

Then　do　not　think；　sir；　that；　in　tripping　up　the　philosophy　of　your　very　learned　and　very　estimable　confrere；　M。　Troplong；　I　fail　to　appreciate　his　talent　as　a　writer　（in　my　opinion；　he　has　too　much　for　a　jurist）；　nor　his　knowledge；　though　it　is　too　closely　confined　to　the　letter　of　the　law；　and　the　reading　of　old　books。　　In　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　as　for　my　critics；　neither　M。　Troplong；　nor　any　of　those　whose　opinion　I　value；　will　ever　read　me。　　Once　more；　my　only　object　is　to　prove；　as　far　as　I　am　able；　to　this　unhappy　French　nation；　that　those　who　make　the　laws；　as　well　as　those　who　interpret　them；　are　not　infallible　organs　of　general；　impersonal；　and　absolute　reason。

I　had　resolved　to　submit　to　a　systematic　criticism　the　semi…　official　defence　of　the　right　of　property　recently　put　forth　by　M。　Wolowski；　your　colleague　at　the　Conservatory。　　With　this　view；　I　had　commenced　to　collect　the　documents　necessary　for　each　of　his　lectures；　but；　soon　perceiving　that　the　ideas　of　the　professor　were　incoherent；　that　his　arguments　contradicted　each　other；　that　one　affirmation　was　sure　to　be　overthrown　by　another；　and　that　in　M。　Wolowski's　lucubrations　the　good　was　always　mingled　with　the　bad；　and　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　slant。　　Then　I　experienced　great　pain　at　seeing　the　reserve；　the　circumlocution；　the　figures；　and　the　irony　to　which　a　professor　of　legislation；　whose　duty　it　is　to　teach　dogmas　with　clearness　and　precision；　was　forced　to　resort；　and　I　fell　to　cursing　the　society　in　which　an　honest　man　is　not　allowed　to　say　frankly　what　he　thinks。　　Never；　sir；　have　you　conceived　of　such　torture：　I　seemed　to　be　witnessing　the　martyrdom　of　a　mind。　　I　am　going　to　give　you　an　idea　of　these　astonishing　meetings；　or　rather　of　these　scenes　of　sorrow。

Monday；　Nov。　　20；　1840。The　professor　declares；　in　brief；1。　That　the　right　of　property　is　not　founded　upon　occupation；　but　upon　the　impress　of　man；　2。　That　every　man　has　a　natural　and　inalienable　right　to　the　use　of　matter。

Now；　if　matter　can　be　appropriated；　and　if；　notwithstanding；　all　men　retain　an　inalienable　right　to　the　use　of　this　matter；　what　is　property？and　if　matter　can　be　appropriated　only　by　labor；　how　long　is　this　appropriation　to　continue？questions　that　will　confuse　and　confound　all　jurists　whatsoever。

Then　M。　Wolowski　cites　his　authorities。　　Great　God！　what　witnesses　he　brings　forward！　　First；　M。　Troplong；　the　great　metaphysician；　whom　we　have　discussed；　then；　M。　Louis　Blanc；　editor　of　the　〃Revue　du　Progres；〃　who　came　near　being　tried　by　jury　for　publishing　his　〃Organization　of　Labor；〃　and　who　escaped　from　the　clutches　of　the　public　prosecutor　only　by　a　juggler's　trick；＇1＇　Corinne；I　mean　Madame　de　Stael；who；　in　an　ode；　making　a　poetical　comparison　of　the　land　with　the　waves；　of　the　furrow　of　a　plough　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　property　in　the　care？？　of　the　people；　that　is；　transferred　the　right　of　eminent　domain　from　the　individual　to　society；　Babeuf；　who　wanted　property　for　the　nation；　and　communism　for　the　citizens；　M。　Considerant；　who　favors　a　division　of　landed　property　into　shares；that　is；　who　wishes　to　render　property　nominal　and　fictitious：　the　whole　being　intermingled　with　jokes　and　witticisms　（intended　undoubtedly　to　lead　people　away　from　the　HORNETS'　NESTS）　at　the　expense　of　the　adversaries　of　the　right　of　property！

＇1＇　　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。




November　26。M。　Wolowski　supposes　this　objection：　Land；　like　water；　air；　and　light；　is　necessary　to　life；　therefore　it　cannot　be　appropriated；　and　he　replies：　The　importance　of　landed　property　diminishes　as　the　power　of　industry　increases。

Good！　this　importance　DIMINISHES；　but　it　does　not　DISAPPEAR；　and　this；　of　itself；　shows　landed　property　to　be　illegitimate。　　Here　M。　Wolowski　pretends　to　think　that　the　opponents　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　position　in　which　he　places　them；　he　finds　a　way　of　drawing　the　attention　of　his　hearers　to　another　subject　without　being　false　to　the　truth　which　it　is　his　office　to　contradict。

〃Property；〃　says　M。　Wolowski；　〃is　that　which　distinguishes　man　from　the　animals。〃　　That　may　be；　but　are　we　to　regard　this　as　a　compliment　or　a　satire？

〃Mahomet；〃　says　M。　Wolowski；　〃decreed　property。〃　　And　so　did　Genghis　Khan；　and　Tamerlane；　and　all　the　ravagers　of　nations。　　What　sort　of　legislators　were　they？

〃Property　has　been　in　existence　ever　since　the　origin　of　the　human　race。〃　　Yes；　and　so　has　slavery；　and　despotism　also；　and　likewise　polygamy　and　idolatry。　　But　what　does　this　antiquity　show？

The　members　of　the　Council　of　the　StateM。　Portalis　at　their　headdid　not　raise；　in　their　discussion　of　the　Code；　the　question　of　the　legitimacy　of　property。　　〃Their　silence；〃　says　M。　Wolowski；　〃is　a　precedent　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　serves　of　itself　as　argument　and　proof。　　When　this　same　opinion　is　attacked；　the　former　faith　proves　nothing；　we　must　resort　to　reason。　　Ignorance；　however　old　and　pardonable　it　may　be；　never　outweighs　reason。〃

Property　has　its　abuses；　M。　Wolowski　confesses。　　〃But；〃　he　says；　〃these　abuses　gradually　disappear。　　To…day　their　cause　is　known。　　They　all　arise　from　a　false　theory　of　property。　　In　principle；　property　is　inviolable；　but　it　can　and　must　be　checked　and　disciplined。〃　　Such　are　the　conclusions　of　the　professor。

When　one　thus　remains　in　the　clouds；　he　need　not　fear　to　equivocate。　　Nevertheless；　I　would　like　him　to　define　these　ABUSES　of　property；　to　show　their　cause；　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　greatest　good　of　all。　　〃Our　civil　code；〃　says　M。　Wolowski；　in　speaking　of　this　subject；　〃leaves　much　to　be　desired。〃　　I　think　it　leaves　every　thing　undone。

Finally；　M。　Wolowski　opposes；　on　the　one　hand；　the　concentration　of　capital；　and　the　absorption　which　results　therefrom；　and；　on　the　other；　he　objects　to　the　extreme　division　of　the　land。　　Now　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　M。　Wolowski　says　nothing　of　the　third　term；　the　SYNTHESIS；　and　thus　leaves　the　inference　in　suspense；　I　have　shown　that　this　third　term　is　ASSOCIATION；　which　is　the　annihilation　of　property。

November　30。LITERARY　PROPERTY。　　M。　Wolowski　grants　that　it　is　just　to　recognize　the　rights　of　talent　（which　is　not　in　the　least　hostile　to　equality）；　but　he　seriously　objects　to　perpetual　and　absolute　property　in　the　works　of　genius；　to　the　profit　of　the　authors'　heirs。　　His　main　argument　is；　that　society　has　a　right　of　collective　production　over　every　creation　of　the　mind。　　Now；　it　is　precisely　this　principle　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　my　nature　to　be；　confines　it　to　neutral　ground。　　So；　that　that　which　I　am　bold　enough　to　say　of　the　whole；　he　is　contented　to　affirm　of　a　part；　leaving　the　intelligent　hearer　to　fill　up　the　void　for　himself。　　However；　his　arguments　are　keen　and　close。　　One　feels　that　the　professor；　finding　himself　more　at　ease　with　one　aspect　of　property；　has　given　the　rein　to　his　intellect；　and　is　rushing　on　towards　liberty。

1。　Absolute　literary　property　would　hinder　the　activity　of　other　men；　and　obstruct　the　development　of　humanity。　　It　would　be　the　death　of　progress；　it　would　be　suicide。　　What　would　have　happened　if　the　first　inventions；the　plough；　the　level；　the　saw；　&c。；　had　been　appropriated？

Such　is　the　first　proposition　of　M。　Wolowski。

I　reply：　　Absolute　property　in　land　and　tools　hinders　human　activity；　and　obstructs　progress　and　the　free　development　of　man。

What　happened　in　Rome；　and　in　all　the　ancient　nations？　　What　occurred　in　the　middle　ages？　　What　do　we　see　to…day　in　England；　in　consequence　of　absolute　property　in　the　sources　of　production？

The　suicide　of　humanity。

2。　Real　and　personal　property　is　in　harmony　with　the　social　interest。　　In　consequence　of　literary　property；　social　and　individual　interests　are　perpetually　in　conflict。

The　statement　of　this　proposition　contains　a　rhetorical　figure；　common　with　those　who　do　not　enjoy　full　and　complete　liberty　of　speech。　　This　figure　is　the　_anti…phrasis_　or　_contre…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　follows：　　〃Just　as　real　and　personal　property　is　essentially　hostile　to　society；　so；　in　consequence　of　literary　property；　social　and　individual　interests　are　perpetually　in　conflict。〃

3。　M。　de　Montalembert；　in　the　Chamber　of　Peers；　vehemently　protested　against　the　assimilation　of　authors　to　inventors　of　machi