man of genius？〃 M。 Wolowski's reply： 〃Because the labor of the first occupant is continued by his heirs； while the heirs of an author neither change nor add to his works。 In landed property； the continuance of labor explains the continuance of the right。〃
Yes； when the labor is continued； but if the labor is not continued； the right ceases。 Thus is the right of possession； founded on personal labor； recognized by M。 Wolowski。
M。 Wolowski decides in favor of granting to authors property in their works for a certain number of years； dating from the day of their first publication。
The succeeding lectures on patents on inventions were no less instructive； although intermingled with shocking contradictions inserted with a view to make the useful truths more palatable。 The necessity for brevity compels me to terminate this examination here； not without regret。
Thus； of two eclectic jurists； who attempt a defence of property； one is entangled in a set of dogmas without principle or method； and is constantly talking nonsense； and the other designedly abandons the cause of property； in order to present under the same name the theory of individual possession。 Was I wrong in claiming that confusion reigned among legists； and ought I to be legally prosecuted for having said that their science henceforth stood convicted of falsehood； its glory eclipsed？
The ordinary resources of the law no longer sufficing； philosophy； political economy； and the framers of systems have been consulted。 All the oracles appealed to have been discouraging。
The philosophers are no clearer to…day than at the time of the eclectic efflorescence； nevertheless； through their mystical apothegms； we can distinguish the words PROGRESS； UNITY； ASSOCIATION； SOLIDARITY； FRATERNITY； which are certainly not reassuring to proprietors。 One of these philosophers； M。 Pierre Leroux； has written two large books； in which he claims to show by all religious； legislative； and philosophical systems that； since men are responsible to each other； equality of conditions is the final law of society。 It is true that this philosopher admits a kind of property； but as he leaves us to imagine what property would become in presence of equality； we may boldly class him with the opponents of the right of increase。
I must here declare freelyin order that I may not be suspected of secret connivance； which is foreign to my naturethat M。 Leroux has my full sympathy。 Not that I am a believer in his quasi…Pythagorean philosophy （upon this subject I should have more than one observation to submit to him； provided a veteran covered with stripes would not despise the remarks of a conscript）； not that I feel bound to this author by any special consideration for his opposition to property。 In my opinion； M。 Leroux could； and even ought to； state his position more explicitly and logically。 But I like； I admire； in M。 Leroux； the antagonist of our philosophical demigods； the demolisher of usurped reputations； the pitiless critic of every thing that is respected because of its antiquity。 Such is the reason for my high esteem of M。 Leroux； such would be the principle of the only literary association which； in this century of coteries； I should care to form。 We need men who； like M。 Leroux； call in question social principles；not to diffuse doubt concerning them； but to make them doubly sure； men who excite the mind by bold negations； and make the conscience tremble by doctrines of annihilation。 Where is the man who does not shudder on hearing M。 Leroux exclaim； 〃There is neither a paradise nor a hell； the wicked will not be punished； nor the good rewarded。 Mortals！ cease to hope and fear； you revolve in a circle of appearances； humanity is an immortal tree； whose branches； withering one after another； feed with their debris the root which is always young！〃 Where is the man who； on hearing this desolate confession of faith； does not demand with terror； 〃Is it then true that I am only an aggregate of elements organized by an unknown force； an idea realized for a few moments； a form which passes and disappears？ Is it true that my mind is only a harmony； and my soul a vortex？ What is the ego？ what is God？ what is the sanction of society？〃
In former times； M。 Leroux would have been regarded as a great culprit； worthy only （like Vanini） of death and universal execration。 To…day； M。 Leroux is fulfilling a mission of salvation； for which； whatever he may say； he will be rewarded。 Like those gloomy invalids who are always talking of their approaching death； and who faint when the doctor's opinion confirms their pretence； our materialistic society is agitated and loses countenance while listening to this startling decree of the philosopher； 〃Thou shalt die！〃 Honor then to M。 Leroux； who has revealed to us the cowardice of the Epicureans； to M。 Leroux； who renders new philosophical solutions necessary！ Honor to the anti…eclectic； to the apostle of equality！
In his work on 〃Humanity；〃 M。 Leroux commences by positing the necessity of property： 〃You wish to abolish property； but do you not see that thereby you would annihilate man and even the name of man？ 。 。 。 You wish to abolish property； but could you live without a body？ I will not tell you that it is necessary to support this body； 。 。 。 I will tell you that this body is itself a species of property。〃
In order clearly to understand the doctrine of M。 Leroux； it must be borne in mind that there are three necessary and primitive forms of society；communism； property； and that which to…day we properly call association。 M。 Leroux rejects in the first place communism； and combats it with all his might。 Man is a personal and free being； and therefore needs a sphere of independence and individual activity。 M。 Leroux emphasizes this in adding： 〃You wish neither family； nor country； nor property； therefore no more fathers； no more sons； no more brothers。 Here you are； related to no being in time； and therefore without a name； here you are； alone in the midst of a billion of men who to…day inhabit the earth。 How do you expect me to distinguish you in space in the midst of this multitude？〃
If man is indistinguishable； he is nothing。 Now； he can be distinguished； individualized； only through a devotion of certain things to his use；such as his body； his faculties； and the tools which he uses。 〃Hence；〃 says M。 Leroux； 〃the necessity of appropriation；〃 in short； property。
But property on what condition？ Here M。 Leroux； after having condemned communism； denounces in its turn the right of domain。 His whole doctrine can be summed up in this single proposition； _Man may be made by property a slave or a despot by turns_。
That posited； if we ask M。 Leroux to tell us under what system of property man will be neither a slave nor a despot； but free； just； and a citizen； M。 Leroux replies in the third volume of his work on 〃Humanity：〃
〃There are three ways of destroying man's communion with his fellows and with the universe： 。 。 。 1。 By separating man in time； 2。 by separating him in space； 3。 by dividing the land； or； in general terms； the instruments of production； by attaching men to things； by subordinating man to property； by making man a proprietor。〃
This language； it must be confessed； savors a little too strongly of the metaphysical heights which the author frequents； and of the school of M。 Cousin。 Nevertheless； it can be seen； clearly enough it seems to me； that M。 Leroux opposes the exclusive appropriation of the instruments of production； only he calls this non…appropriation of the instruments of production a NEW METHOD of establishing property； while I； in accordance with all precedent； call it a destruction of property。 In fact； without the appropriation of instruments； property is nothing。
〃Hitherto。 we have confined ourselves to pointing out and combating the despotic features of property； by considering property alone。 We have failed to see that the despotism of property is a correlative of the division of the human race； 。 。 。 that property； instead of being organized in such a way as to facilitate the unlimited communion of man with his fellows and with the universe； has been； on the contrary； turned against this communion。〃
Let us translate this into commercial phraseology。 In order to destroy despotism and the inequality of conditions； men must cease from competition and must associate their interests。 Let employer and employed （now enemies and rivals） become associates。
Now； ask any manufacturer； merchant； or capitalist； whether he would consider himself a proprietor if he were to share his revenue and profits with this mass of wage…laborers whom it is proposed to make his associates。
〃Family； property； and country are finite things； which ought to be organized with a view to the infinite。 For man is a finite being； who aspires to the infinite。 To him； absolute finiteness is evil。 The infinite is his aim； the indefinite his right。〃
Few of my readers would understand these hierophantic words； were I to leave them unexplained。 M。 Leroux means； by this magnificent formula； that humanity is a single immense society； which； in its collective unity； represents the infinite； that every nation； every tribe； every commune； and every citizen are； in different degrees； fragments or finite members of the infinite society； the evil in which results solely from individualism and privilege；in other words； from the subordination of the infinite to the finite； finally； that； to attain humanity's end and aim； each part has a right to an indefinitely progressive development。
〃All the evils which afflict the human race arise from caste。 The family is a blessing； the family caste （the nobility） is an evil。 Country is a blessing； the country caste （supreme； domineering； conquering） is an evil； property （individual possession） is a blessing； the property caste （the domain of property of Pothier； Toullier； Troplong； &c。） is an evil。〃
Thus； according to M。 Leroux； there is property and property； the one good； the other bad。 Now； as it is proper to call different things by different names； if we keep the name 〃property〃 for the former； we must call the latter robbery； rapine； brigand