； as iron approaches the magnet； or； better still； as we verify a mathematical operation by applying the PROOF。 TIME has hitherto served as a sort of criterion for society。 Thus； the primitive menhaving observed that they were not all equal in strength； beauty； and laborjudged； and rightly； that certain ones among them were called by nature to the performance of simple and common functions； but they concluded； and this is where their error lay； that these same individuals of duller intellect； more restricted genius； and weaker personality； were predestined to SERVE the others； that is； to labor while the latter rested； and to have no other will than theirs： and from this idea of a natural subordination among men sprang domesticity； which； voluntarily accepted at first； was imperceptibly converted into horrible slavery。 Time； making this error more palpable； has brought about justice。 Nations have learned at their own cost that the subjection of man to man is a false idea； an erroneous theory； pernicious alike to master and to slave。 And yet such a social system has stood several thousand years； and has been defended by celebrated philosophers； even to…day； under somewhat mitigated forms； sophists of every description uphold and extol it。 But experience is bringing it to an end。
Time； then； is the criterion of societies； thus looked at； history is the demonstration of the errors of humanity by the argument _reductio ad absurdum_。
Now； the criterion sought for by metaphysicians would have the advantage of discriminating at once between the true and the false in every opinion； so that in politics； religion； and morals； for example； the true and the useful being immediately recognized； we should no longer need to await the sorrowful experience of time。 Evidently such a secret would be death to the sophists；that cursed brood； who； under different names； excite the curiosity of nations； and； owing to the difficulty of separating the truth from the error in their artistically woven theories； lead them into fatal ventures； disturb their peace； and fill them with such extraordinary prejudice。
Up to this day； the criterion of certainty remains a mystery； this is owing to the multitude of criteria that have been successively proposed。 Some have taken for an absolute and definite criterion the testimony of the senses； others intuition； these evidence； those argument。 M。 Lamennais affirms that there is no other criterion than universal reason。 Before him； M。 de Bonald thought he had discovered it in language。 Quite recently； M。 Buchez has proposed morality； and； to harmonize them all； the eclectics have said that it was absurd to seek for an absolute criterion； since there were as many criteria as special orders of knowledge。
Of all these hypotheses it may be observed； That the testimony of the senses is not a criterion； because the senses； relating us only to phenomena； furnish us with no ideas； that intuition needs external confirmation or objective certainty； that evidence requires proof； and argument verification； that universal reason has been wrong many a time； that language serves equally well to express the true or the false； that morality； like all the rest； needs demonstration and rule； and finally； that the eclectic idea is the least reasonable of all； since it is of no use to say that there are several criteria if we cannot point out one。 I very much fear that it will be with the criterion as with the philosopher's stone； that it will finally be abandoned； not only as insolvable； but as chimerical。 Consequently； I entertain no hopes of having found it； nevertheless； I am not sure that some one more skilful will not discover it。
Be it as it may with regard to a criterion or criteria； there are methods of demonstration which； when applied to certain subjects； may lead to the discovery of unknown truths； bring to light relations hitherto unsuspected； and lift a paradox to the highest degree of certainty。 In such a case； it is not by its novelty； nor even by its content； that a system should be judged； but by its method。 The critic； then； should follow the example of the Supreme Court； which； in the cases which come before it； never examines the facts； but only the form of procedure。 Now； what is the form of procedure？ A method。
I then looked to see what philosophy； in the absence of a criterion； had accomplished by the aid of special methods； and I must say that I could not discoverin spite of the loudly… proclaimed pretensions of somethat it had produced any thing of real value； and； at last； wearied with the philosophical twaddle； I resolved to make a new search for the criterion。 I confess it； to my shame； this folly lasted for two years； and I am not yet entirely rid of it。 It was like seeking a needle in a haystack。 I might have learned Chinese or Arabic in the time that I have lost in considering and reconsidering syllogisms； in rising to the summit of an induction as to the top of a ladder； in inserting a proposition between the horns of a dilemma； in decomposing； distinguishing； separating； denying； affirming； admitting； as if I could pass abstractions through a sieve。
I selected justice as the subject…matter of my experiments。 Finally； after a thousand decompositions； recompositions； and double compositions； I found at the bottom of my analytical crucible； not the criterion of certainty； but a metaphysico… economico…political treatise； whose conclusions were such that I did not care to present them in a more artistic or； if you will； more intelligible form。 The effect which this work produced upon all classes of minds gave me an idea of the spirit of our age； and did not cause me to regret the prudent and scientific obscurity of my style。 How happens it that to…day I am obliged to defend my intentions； when my conduct bears the evident impress of such lofty morality？
You have read my work； sir； and you know the gist of my tedious and scholastic lucubrations。 Considering the revolutions of humanity； the vicissitudes of empires； the transformations of property； and the innumerable forms of justice and of right； I asked； 〃Are the evils which afflict us inherent in our condition as men； or do they arise only from an error？ This inequality of fortunes which all admit to be the cause of society's embarrassments； is it； as some assert； the effect of Nature； or； in the division of the products of labor and the soil； may there not have been some error in calculation？ Does each laborer receive all that is due him； and only that which is due him？ In short； in the present conditions of labor； wages； and exchange； is no one wronged？are the accounts well kept？is the social balance accurate？〃
Then I commenced a most laborious investigation。 It was necessary to arrange informal notes； to discuss contradictory titles； to reply to captious allegations； to refute absurd pretensions； and to describe fictitious debts； dishonest transactions； and fraudulent accounts。 In order to triumph over quibblers； I had to deny the authority of custom； to examine the arguments of legislators； and to oppose science with science itself。 Finally； all these operations completed； I had to give a judicial decision。
I therefore declared； my hand upon my heart； before God and men； that the causes of social inequality are three in number： 1。 GRATUITOUS APPROPRIATION OF COLLECTIVE WEALTH； 2。 INEQUALITY IN EXCHANGE； 3。 THE RIGHT OF PROFIT OR INCREASE。
And since this threefold method of extortion is the very essence of the domain of property； I denied the legitimacy of property； and proclaimed its identity with robbery。
That is my only offence。 I have reasoned upon property； I have searched for the criterion of justice； I have demonstrated； not the possibility； but the necessity； of equality of fortunes； I have allowed myself no attack upon persons； no assault upon the government； of which I； more than any one else； am a provisional adherent。 If I have sometimes used the word PROPRIETOR； I have used it as the abstract name of a metaphysical being； whose reality breathes in every individual；not alone in a privileged few。
Nevertheless； I acknowledgefor I wish my confession to be sincerethat the general tone of my book has been bitterly censured。 They complain of an atmosphere of passion and invective unworthy of an honest man； and quite out of place in the treatment of so grave a subject。
If this reproach is well founded （which it is impossible for me either to deny or admit； because in my own cause I cannot be judge）；if； I say； I deserve this charge； I can only humble myself and acknowledge myself guilty of an involuntary wrong； the only excuse that I could offer being of such a nature that it ought not to be communicated to the public。 All that I can say is； that I understand better than any one how the anger which injustice causes may render an author harsh and violent in his criticisms。 When； after twenty years of labor； a man still finds himself on the brink of starvation； and then suddenly discovers in an equivocation； an error in calculation； the cause of the evil which torments him in common with so many millions of his fellows； he can scarcely restrain a cry of sorrow and dismay。
But； sir； though pride be offended by my rudeness； it is not to pride that I apologize； but to the proletaires； to the simple… minded； whom I perhaps have scandalized。 My angry dialectics may have produced a bad effect on some peaceable minds。 Some poor workingmanmore affected by my sarcasm than by the strength of my argumentsmay； perhaps； have concluded that property is the result of a perpetual Machiavelianism on the part of the governors against the governed；a deplorable error of which my book itself is the best refutation。 I devoted two chapters to showing how property springs from human personality and the comparison of individuals。 Then I explained its perpetual limitation； and； following out the same idea； I predicted its approaching disappearance。 How； then； could the editors of the 〃Revue Democratique；〃 after having borrowed from me nearly the whole substance of their economical articles； dare to say： 〃The holders of the soil； and other productive capital； are more or less wilful accomplices in a vast robb