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.
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 civilization--the progressive education of the race--can 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 STUDIESSYSTEMS, 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.
