eated separately； so the former has its ensemble； its 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 accuracy from a single order of facts； certain as I was of the perfect correlation which exists between this special order and universal history。 As is the property of a nation； so is its family； its marriage； its religion； its civil and military organization； and its legislative and judicial institutions。 History； viewed from this standpoint； is a grand and sublime psychological study。
Well； sir； in writing against property； have I done more than quote the language of history？ I have said to modern society； the daughter and heiress of all preceding societies；_Age guod agis：_ complete the task which for six thousand years you have been executing under the inspiration and by 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 as a guide。 Awaken your sleeping conscience； open your eyes to the pure light of reflection and science； behold the phantom which troubled your dreams； and so long kept you in a state of unutterable anguish。 Know thyself； O long…deluded society＇1＇ know thy enemy！ 。 。 。 And I have denounced property。
We often hear the defenders of the right of domain quote in defence of their views the testimony of nations and ages。 We can judge； from what has just been said； how far this historical argument conforms to the real facts and the conclusions of science。
To complete this apology； I must examine the various theories。
Neither politics； nor legislation； nor history； can be explained and understood； without a positive theory which defines their elements； and discovers their laws； in short； without a
philosophy。 Now； the two principal schools； which to this day divide the attention of the world； do not satisfy this condition。
The first； essentially PRACTICAL in its character； confined to a statement of facts； and buried in learning； cares very little by what laws humanity develops itself。 To it these laws are the secret of the Almighty； which no one can fathom 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 opinion； the lessons of experience teach us only to repeat old errors； and its whole philosophy consists in perpetually retracing the tracks of antiquity； instead of going straight ahead forever in the direction in which they point。
The second school may be called either FATALISTIC or PANTHEISTIC。 To it the movements of empires and the revolutions of humanity are the manifestations； the incarnations； of the Almighty。 The human race； identified with the divine essence； wheels in a circle of appearances； informations； and destructions； which necessarily excludes the idea of absolute truth； and destroys providence and liberty。
Corresponding to these two schools of history； there are two schools of jurisprudence； similarly opposed； and possessed of the same peculiarities。
1。 The practical and conventional school； to which the law is always a creation of the legislator； an expression of his will； a privilege which he condescends to grant；in short； a gratuitous affirmation to be regarded as judicious and legitimate； no matter what it declares。
2。 The fatalistic and pantheistic school； sometimes called the historical school； which opposes the despotism of the first； and maintains that law； like literature and religion； is always the expression of society；its manifestation； its form； the external realization of its mobile spirit and its ever…changing inspirations。
Each of these schools； denying the absolute； rejects thereby all positive and a priori philosophy。
Now； it is evident that the theories of these two schools； whatever view we take of them； are utterly unsatisfactory： for； opposed； they form no dilemma；that is； if one is false； it does not follow that the other 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； a SYNTHESIS； which； predicating the absolute； justifies the will of the legislator； explains the variations of the law； annihilates the theory of the circular movement of humanity； and demonstrates its progress。
The legists； by the very nature of their studies and in spite of their obstinate prejudices； have been led irresistibly to suspect that the absolute in the science of law is not as chimerical as is commonly supposed； and this suspicion arose from their comparison of the various relations which legislators have been called upon to regulate。
M。 Laboulaye； the laureate of the Institute； begins his 〃History of Property〃 with these words：
〃While the law of contract； which regulates only the mutual interests of men； has not varied for centuries （except in certain forms which relate more to the proof than to the character of the obligation）； the civil law of property； which 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 justice which are engraven upon the depths of the human heart； is the immutable element of jurisprudence； and； in a certain sense； its philosophy。 Property； on the contrary； is the variable element of jurisprudence； its history； its policy。〃
Marvellous！ There is in law； and consequently in politics； something variable and something invariable。 The invariable element is obligation； the bond 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 law can modify； change； reform； and judge property。 Reconcile that； if you can； with the idea of an eternal； absolute； permanent； and indefectible right。
However； M。 Laboulaye is in perfect accord with himself when he adds； 〃Possession of the soil rests solely upon force until society takes it in hand； and espouses the cause of the possessor；〃＇1＇ 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 made the law can unmake； especially since； according to M。 Laboulaye；an avowed partisan of the historical or pantheistic school；the law is not absolute； is not an idea； but a form。
＇1＇ 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。
But why is it that property is variable； and； unlike obligation； incapable of definition and settlement？ Before affirming； somewhat boldly without doubt； that in right there are no absolute principles （the most dangerous； most immoral； most tyrannicalin a word； most anti…socialassertion imaginable）； it was proper that the right of property should be subjected to a thorough examination； in order to put in evidence its variable； arbitrary； and contingent elements； and those which are eternal； legitimate； and absolute； then； this operation performed； it became easy to account for the laws； and to correct all the codes。
Now； this examination of property I claim to have made； and in the fullest detail； but； either from the public's lack of interest in an unrecommended and unattractive pamphlet； orwhich is more probablefrom the weakness of exposition and want of genius 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 economical predecessors in too severe a criticism of them；you alone have judged me justly； and although I cannot accept； at least literally； your first judgment； yet it is to you alone that I appeal from a decision too equivocal to be regarded as final。
It not being my intention to enter at present into a discussion of principles； I shall content myself with estimating； from the point of view of this simple and intelligible absolute； the theories of property which our generation has produced。
The most exact idea of property is given us by the Roman law； faithfully followed in this particular by the ancient legists。 It is the absolute； exclusive； autocratic domain 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 domain which so identifies the man with the thing； that the proprietor can say； 〃He who uses my field； virtually compels me to labor for him； therefore he owes me compensation。〃
I pass in silence the secondary modes by which property can be acquired；_tradition； sale； exchange； inheritance_； &c。；which have nothing in common with the origin of property。
Accordingly； Pothier said THE DOMAIN OF PROPERTY； and not simply PROPERTY。 And the most learned writers on jurisprudencein imitation of the Roman praetor who recognized a RIGHT OF PROPERTY and a RIGHT OF POSSESSIONhave carefully distinguished between the DOMAIN and the right of USUFRUCT； USE； and HABITATION； which； reduced to its natural limits； is the very expression of justice； and which is； in my opinion； to supplant domanial property； and finally form the basis of all jurisprudence。
But； sir； admire