The psychological portion amounts to nothing, M.Lamennais openly ridiculing labors of this character, without which, however, metaphysics is impossible.The book, which treats of logic and its methods, is weak, vague, and shallow.Finally, we find in the physical and physiological speculations which M.Lamennais deduces from his trinitarian cosmogony grave errors, the preconceived design of accommodating facts to theory, and the substitution in almost every case of hypothesis for reality.The third volume on industry and art is the most interesting to read, and the best.It is true that M.Lamennais can boast of nothing but his style.As a philosopher, he has added not a single idea to those which existed before him.
Why, then, this excessive mediocrity of M.Lamennais considered as a thinker, a mediocrity which disclosed itself at the time of the publication of the "Essai sur l'Indifference!"? It is because (remember this well, proletaires!) Nature makes no man truly complete, and because the development of certain faculties almost always excludes an equal development of the opposite faculties; it is because M.Lamennais is preeminently a poet, a man of feeling and sentiment.Look at his style,--exuberant, sonorous, picturesque, vehement, full of exaggeration and invective,--and hold it for certain that no man possessed of such a style was ever a true metaphysician.This wealth of expression and illustration, which everybody admires, becomes in M Lamennais the incurable cause of his philosophical impotence.His flow of language, and his sensitive nature misleading his imagination, he thinks that he is reasoning when he is only repeating himself, and readily takes a description for a logical deduction.Hence his horror of positive ideas, his feeble powers of analysis, his pronounced taste for indefinite analogies, verbal abstractions, hypothetical generalities, in short, all sorts of entites.
Further, the entire life of M.Lamennais is conclusive proof of his anti-philosophical genius.Devout even to mysticism, an ardent ultramontane, an intolerant theocrat, he at first feels the double influence of the religious reaction and the literary theories which marked the beginning of this century, and falls back to the middle ages and Gregory VII.; then, suddenly becoming a progressive Christian and a democrat, he gradually leans towards rationalism, and finally falls into deism.At present, everybody waits at the trap-door.As for me, though I would not swear to it, I am inclined to think that M.Lamennais, already taken with scepticism, will die in a state of indifference.He owes to individual reason and methodical doubt this expiation of his early essays.
It has been pretended that M.Lamennais, preaching now a theocracy, now universal democracy, has been always consistent;that, under different names, he has sought invariably one and the same thing,--unity.Pitiful excuse for an author surprised in the very act of contradiction! What would be thought of a man who, by turns a servant of despotism under Louis XVI, a demagogue with Robespierre, a courtier of the Emperor, a bigot during fifteen years of the Restoration, a conservative since 1830, should dare to say that he ever had wished for but one thing,--public order? Would he be regarded as any the less a renegade from all parties? Public order, unity, the world's welfare, social harmony, the union of the nations,--concerning each of these things there is no possible difference of opinion.
Everybody wishes them; the character of the publicist depends only upon the means by which he proposes to arrive at them.But why look to M.Lamennais for a steadfastness of opinion, which he himself repudiates? Has he not said, "The mind has no law; that which I believe to-day, I did not believe yesterday; I do not know that I shall believe it to-morrow"?
No; there is no real superiority among men, since all talents and capacities are combined never in one individual.This man has the power of thought, that one imagination and style, still another industrial and commercial capacity.By our very nature and education, we possess only special aptitudes which are limited and confined, and which become consequently more necessary as they gain in depth and strength.Capacities are to each other as functions and persons; who would dare to classify them in ranks? The finest genius is, by the laws of his existence and development, the most dependent upon the society which creates him.Who would dare to make a god of the glorious child?
"It is not strength which makes the man," said a Hercules of the market-place to the admiring crowd; "it is character." That man, who had only his muscles, held force in contempt.The lesson is a good one, proletaires; we should profit by it.It is not talent (which is also a force), it is not knowledge, it is not beauty which makes the man.It is heart, courage, will, virtue.
Now, if we are equal in that which makes us men, how can the accidental distribution of secondary faculties detract from our manhood?
Remember that privilege is naturally and inevitably the lot of the weak; and do not be misled by the fame which accompanies certain talents whose greatest merit consists in their rarity, and a long and toilsome apprenticeship.It is easier for M.
Lamennais to recite a philippic, or sing a humanitarian ode after the Platonic fashion, than to discover a single useful truth; it is easier for an economist to apply the laws of production and distribution than to write ten lines in the style of M.
Lamennais; it is easier for both to speak than to act.You, then, who put your hands to the work, who alone truly create, why do you wish me to admit your inferiority? But, what am I saying?
Yes, you are inferior, for you lack virtue and will! Ready for labor and for battle, you have, when liberty and equality are in question, neither courage nor character!
