olders of the soil； and other productive capital； are more or less wilful accomplices in a vast robbery； they being the exclusive receivers and sharers of the stolen goods〃？
The proprietors WILFULLY guilty of the crime of robbery！ Never did that homicidal phrase escape my pen； never did my heart conceive the frightful thought。 Thank Heaven！ I know not how to calumniate my kind； and I have too strong a desire to seek for the reason of things to be willing to believe in criminal conspiracies。 The millionnaire is no more tainted by property than the journeyman who works for thirty sous per day。 On both sides the error is equal； as well as the intention。 The effect is also the same； though positive in the former； and negative in the latter。 I accused property； I did not denounce the proprietors； which would have been absurd： and I am sorry that there are among us wills so perverse and minds so shattered that they care for only so much of the truth as will aid them in their evil designs。 Such is the only regret which I feel on account of my indignation； which； though expressed perhaps too bitterly； was at least honest； and legitimate in its source。
However； what did I do in this essay which I voluntarily submitted to the Academy of Moral Sciences？ Seeking a fixed axiom amid social uncertainties； I traced back to one fundamental question all the secondary questions over which； at present； so keen and diversified a conflict is raging This question was the right of property。 Then； comparing all existing theories with each other； and extracting from them that which is common to them all； I endeavored to discover that element in the idea of property which is necessary； immutable； and absolute； and asserted； after authentic verification； that this idea is reducible to that of INDIVIDUAL AND TRANSMISSIBLE POSSESSION； SUSCEPTIBLE OF EXCHANGE； BUT NOT OF ALIENATION； FOUNDED ON LABOR； AND NOT ON FICTITIOUS OCCUPANCY； OR IDLE CAPRICE。 I said； further； that this idea was the result of our revolutionary movements；the culminating point towards which all opinions； gradually divesting themselves of their contradictory elements； converge。 And I tried to demonstrate this by the spirit of the laws； by political economy； by psychology and history。
A Father of the Church； finishing a learned exposition of the Catholic doctrine； cried； in the enthusiasm of his faith； _〃Domine； si error est； a te decepti sumus_ （if my religion is false； God is to blame）。〃 I； as well as this theologian； can say； 〃If equality is a fable； God； through whom we act and think and are； God； who governs society by eternal laws； who rewards just nations； and punishes proprietors；God alone is the author of evil； God has lied。 The fault lies not with me。〃
But； if I am mistaken in my inferences； I should be shown my error； and led out of it。 It is surely worth the trouble； and I think I deserve this honor。 There is no ground for proscription。
For； in the words of that member of the Convention who did not like the guillotine； _to kill is not to reply_。 Until then； I persist in regarding my work as useful； social； full of instruction for public officials；worthy； in short； of reward and encouragement。
For there is one truth of which I am profoundly convinced； nations live by absolute ideas； not by approximate and partial conceptions； therefore； men are needed who define principles； or at least test them in the fire of controversy。 Such is the law；the idea first； the pure idea； the understanding of the laws of God； the theory： practice follows with slow steps； cautious； attentive to the succession of events； sure to seize； towards this eternal meridian； the indications of supreme reason。
The co…operation of theory and practice produces in humanity the realization of order；the absolute truth。＇1＇
＇1＇ A writer for the radical press； M。 Louis Raybaud； said； in the preface to his 〃Studies of Contemporary Reformers：〃 〃Who does not know that morality is relative？ Aside from a few grand sentiments which are strikingly instinctive； the measure of human acts varies with nations and climates； and only civilizationthe progressive education of the racecan lead to a universal morality。 。 。 。 The absolute escapes our contingent and finite nature； the absolute is the secret of God。〃 God keep from evil M。 Louis Raybaud！ But I cannot help remarking that all political apostates begin by the negation of the absolute； which is really the negation of truth。 What can a writer； who professes scepticism； have in common with radical views？ What has he to say to his readers？ What judgment is he entitled to pass upon contemporary reformers？ M。 Raybaud thought it would seem wise to repeat an old impertinence of the legist； and that may serve him for an excuse。 We all have these weaknesses。 But I am surprised that a man of so much intelligence as M。 Raybaud； who STUDIES SYSTEMS； fails to see the very thing he ought first to recognize；namely； that systems are the progress of the mind towards the absolute。
All of us； as long as we live； are called； each in proportion to his strength； to this sublime work。 The only duty which it imposes upon us is to refrain from appropriating the truth to ourselves； either by concealing it； or by accommodating it to the temper of the century； or by using it for our own interests。 This principle of conscience； so grand and so simple； has always been present in my thought。
Consider； in fact； sir； that which I might have done； but did not wish to do。 I reason on the most honorable hypothesis。 What hindered me from concealing； for some years to come； the abstract theory of the equality of fortunes； and； at the same time； from criticising constitutions and codes； from showing the absolute and the contingent； the immutable and the ephemeral； the eternal and the transitory； in laws present and past； from constructing a new system of legislation； and establishing on a solid foundation this social edifice； ever destroyed and as often rebuilt？ Might I not； taking up the definitions of casuists； have clearly shown the cause of their contradictions and uncertainties； and supplied； at the same time； the inadequacies of their conclusions？ Might I not have confirmed this labor by a vast historical exposition； in which the principle of exclusion； and of the accumulation of property； the appropriation of collective wealth； and the radical vice in exchanges； would have figured as the constant causes of tyranny； war； and revolution？
〃It should have been done；〃 you say。 Do not doubt； sir； that such a task would have required more patience than genius。 With the principles of social economy which I have analyzed； I would have had only to break the ground； and follow the furrow。 The critic of laws finds nothing more difficult than to determine justice： the labor alone would have been longer。 Oh； if I had pursued this glittering prospect； and； like the man of the burning bush； with inspired countenance and deep and solemn voice； had presented myself some day with new tables； there would have been found fools to admire； boobies to applaud； and cowards to offer me the dictatorship； for； in the way of popular infatuations； nothing is impossible。
But； sir； after this monument of insolence and pride； what should I have deserved in your opinion； at the tribunal of God； and in the judgment of free men？ Death； sir； and eternal reprobation！
I therefore spoke the truth as soon as I saw it； waiting only long enough to give it proper expression。 I pointed out error in order that each might reform himself； and render his labors more useful。 I announced the existence of a new political element； in order that my associates in reform； developing it in concert； might arrive more promptly at that unity of principles which alone can assure to society a better day。 I expected to receive； if not for my book； at least for my commendable conduct； a small republican ovation。 And； behold！ journalists denounce me； academicians curse me； political adventurers （great God！） think to make themselves tolerable by protesting that they are not like me！ I give the formula by which the whole social edifice may be scientifically reconstructed； and the strongest minds reproach me for being able only to destroy。 The rest despise me； because I am unknown。 When the 〃Essay on Property〃 fell into the reformatory camp； some asked： 〃Who has spoken？ Is it Arago？ Is it Lamennais？ Michel de Bourges or Garnier…Pages？〃
And when they heard the name of a new man： 〃We do not know him；〃 they would reply。 Thus； the monopoly of thought； property in reason； oppresses the proletariat as well as the _bourgeoisie_。 The worship of the infamous prevails even on the steps of the tabernacle。
But what am I saying？ May evil befall me； if I blame the poor creatures！ Oh！ let us not despise those generous souls； who in the excitement of their patriotism are always prompt to identify the voice of their chiefs with the truth。 Let us encourage rather their simple credulity； enlighten complacently and tenderly their precious sincerity； and reserve our shafts for those vain…glorious spirits who are always admiring their genius； and； in different tongues； caressing the people in order to govern them。
These considerations alone oblige me to reply to the strange and superficial conclusions of the 〃Journal du Peuple〃 （issue of Oct。 11； 1840）； on the question of property。 I leave； therefore； the journalist to address myself only to his readers。 I hope that the self…love of the writer will not be offended； if； in the presence of the masses； I ignore an individual。
You say； proletaires of the 〃Peuple；〃 〃For the very reason that men and things exist； there always will be men who will possess things； nothing； therefore； can destroy property。〃
In speaking thus； you unconsciously argue exactly after the manner of M。 Cousin； who always reasons from _possession_ to PROPERTY。 This coincidence； however； does not surprise me。 M。 Cousin is a philosopher of much mind； and you； proletaires； have still more。 Certainly it is honorable； even for a philosopher； to be your companion in error。
Originally； the word PROPERTY was synonymous with PROPER or INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION。 It designated each