f　the　property　previous　to　its　division。　　There　is　no　difficulty　about　this　in　the　case　of　guardianship；　when　the　estate　is　administered　in　the　name　of　the　minors。
  2。　That　which　I　have　just　said　of　the　obligation　incurred　by　talent　of　repaying　the　cost　of　its　education　does　not　embarrass　the　economist。　　The　man　of　talent；　he　says；　inheriting　from　his　family；　inherits　among　other　things　a　claim　to　the　forty　thousand　francs　which　his　education　costs；　and　he　becomes；　in　consequence；　its　proprietor。　　But　this　is　to　abandon　the　right　of　talent；　and　to　fall　back　upon　the　right　of　occupancy；　which　again　calls　up　all　the　questions　asked　in　Chapter　II。　　What　is　the　right　of　occupancy？　what　is　inheritance？　　Is　the　right　of　succession　a　right　of　accumulation　or　only　a　right　of　choice？　how　did　the　physician's　father　get　his　fortune？　was　he　a　proprietor；　or　only　a　usufructuary？　　If　he　was　rich；　let　him　account　for　his　wealth；　if　he　was　poor；　how　could　he　incur　so　large　an　expense？　　If　he　received　aid；　what　right　had　he　to　use　that　aid　to　the　disadvantage　of　his　benefactors；　&c。？
  3。　〃There　remains　an　income　of　twenty…six　thousand　francs　due　to　the　personal　talents　given　him　by　Nature。〃　　（Say；as　above　quoted。）　　Reasoning　from　this　premise；　Say　concludes　that　our　physician's　talent　is　equivalent　to　a　capital　of　two　hundred　and　sixty　thousand　francs。　　This　skilful　calculator　mistakes　a　consequence　for　a　principle。　　The　talent　must　not　be　measured　by　the　gain；　but　rather　the　gain　by　the　talent；　for　it　may　happen；　that；　notwithstanding　his　merit；　the　physician　in　question　will　gain　nothing　at　all；　in　which　case　will　it　be　necessary　to　conclude　that　his　talent　or　fortune　is　equivalent　to　zero？　　To　such　a　result；　however；　would　Say's　reasoning　lead；　a　result　which　is　clearly　absurd。
  Now；　it　is　impossible　to　place　a　money　value　on　any　talent　whatsoever；　since　talent　and　money　have　no　common　measure。　　On　what　plausible　ground　can　it　be　maintained　that　a　physician　should　be　paid　two；　three；　or　a　hundred　times　as　much　as　a　peasant？　　An　unavoidable　difficulty；　which　has　never　been　solved　save　by　avarice；　necessity；　and　oppression。　　It　is　not　thus　that　the　right　of　talent　should　be　determined。　　But　how　is　it　to　be　determined？
  4。　I　say；　first；　that　the　physician　must　be　treated　with　as　much　favor　as　any　other　producer；　that　he　must　not　be　placed　below　the　level　of　others。　　This　I　will　not　stop　to　prove。　　But　I　add　that　neither　must　he　be　lifted　above　that　level；　because　his　talent　is　collective　property　for　which　he　did　not　pay；　and　for　which　he　is　ever　in　debt。
  Just　as　the　creation　of　every　instrument　of　production　is　the　result　of　collective　force；　so　also　are　a　man's　talent　and　knowledge　the　product　of　universal　intelligence　and　of　general　knowledge　slowly　accumulated　by　a　number　of　masters；　and　through　the　aid　of　many　inferior　industries。　　When　the　physician　has　paid　for　his　teachers；　his　books；　his　diplomas；　and　all　the　other　items　of　his　educational　expenses；　he　has　no　more　paid　for　his　talent　than　the　capitalist　pays　for　his　house　and　land　when　he　gives　his　employees　their　wages。　　The　man　of　talent　has　contributed　to　the　production　in　himself　of　a　useful　instrument。　　He　has；　then；　a　share　in　its　possession；　he　is　not　its　proprietor。　　There　exist　side　by　side　in　him　a　free　laborer　and　an　accumulated　social　capital。　　As　a　laborer；　he　is　charged　with　the　use　of　an　instrument；　with　the　superintendence　of　a　machine；　namely；　his　capacity。　　As　capital；　he　is　not　his　own　master；　he　uses　himself；　not　for　his　own　benefit；　but　for　that　of　others。
  Even　if　talent　did　not　find　in　its　own　excellence　a　reward　for　the　sacrifices　which　it　costs；　still　would　it　be　easier　to　find　reasons　for　lowering　its　reward　than　for　raising　it　above　the　common　level。　　Every　producer　receives　an　education；　every　laborer　is　a　talent；　a　capacity；that　is；　a　piece　of　collective　property。　　But　all　talents　are　not　equally　costly。　　It　takes　but　few　teachers；　but　few　years；　and　but　little　study；　to　make　a　farmer　or　a　mechanic：　the　generative　effort　andif　I　may　venture　to　use　such　languagethe　period　of　social　gestation　are　proportional　to　the　loftiness　of　the　capacity。　　But　while　the　physician；　the　poet；　the　artist；　and　the　savant　produce　but　little；　and　that　slowly；　the　productions　of　the　farmer　are　much　less　uncertain；　and　do　not　require　so　long　a　time。　　Whatever　be　then　the　capacity　of　a　man；when　this　capacity　is　once　created；it　does　not　belong　to　him。　　Like　the　material　fashioned　by　an　industrious　hand；　it　had　the　power　of　BECOMING；　and　society　has　given　it　BEING。　　Shall　the　vase　say　to　the　potter；　〃I　am　that　I　am；　and　I　owe　you　nothing〃？
  The　artist；　the　savant；　and　the　poet　find　their　just　recompense　in　the　permission　that　society　gives　them　to　devote　themselves　exclusively　to　science　and　to　art：　so　that　in　reality　they　do　not　labor　for　themselves；　but　for　society；　which　creates　them；　and　requires　of　them　no　other　duty。　　Society　can；　if　need　be；　do　without　prose　and　verse；　music　and　painting；　and　the　knowledge　of　the　movements　of　the　moon　and　stars；　but　it　cannot　live　a　single　day　without　food　and　shelter。
  Undoubtedly；　man　does　not　live　by　bread　alone；　he　must；　also　（according　to　the　Gospel）；　LIVE　BY　THE　WORD　OF　GOD；　that　is；　he　must　love　the　good　and　do　it；　know　and　admire　the　beautiful；　and　study　the　marvels　of　Nature。　　But　in　order　to　cultivate　his　mind；　he　must　first　take　care　of　his　body；the　latter　duty　is　as　necessary　as　the　former　is　noble。　　If　it　is　glorious　to　charm　and　instruct　men；　it　is　honorable　as　well　to　feed　them。　　When；　then；　societyfaithful　to　the　principle　of　the　division　of　labor　intrusts　a　work　of　art　or　of　science　to　one　of　its　members；　allowing　him　to　abandon　ordinary　labor；　it　owes　him　an　indemnity　for　all　which　it　prevents　him　from　producing　industrially；　but　it　owes　him　nothing　more。　　If　he　should　demand　more；　society　should；　by　refusing　his　services；　annihilate　his　pretensions。　　Forced；　then；　in　order　to　live；　to　devote　himself　to　labor　repugnant　to　his　nature；　the　man　of　genius　would　feel　his　weakness；　and　would　live　the　most　distasteful　of　lives。
  They　tell　of　a　celebrated　singer　who　demanded　of　the　Empress　of　Russia　（Catherine　II）　twenty　thousand　roubles　for　his　services：　　〃That　is　more　than　I　give　my　field…marshals；〃　said　Catherine。　　〃Your　majesty；〃　replied　the　other；　〃has　only　to　make　singers　of　her　field…marshals。〃
  If　France　（more　powerful　than　Catherine　II）　should　say　to　Mademoiselle　Rachel；　〃You　must　act　for　one　hundred　louis；　or　else　spin　cotton；〃　to　M。　Duprez；　〃You　must　sing　for　two　thousand　four　hundred　francs；　or　else　work　in　the　vineyard；〃do　you　think　that　the　actress　Rachel；　and　the　singer　Duprez；　would　abandon　the　stage？　　If　they　did；　they　would　be　the　first　to　repent　it。
  Mademoiselle　Rachel　receives；　they　say；　sixty　thousand　francs　annually　from　the　Comedie…Francaise。　　For　a　talent　like　hers；　it　is　a　slight　fee。　　Why　not　one　hundred　thousand　francs；　two　hundred　thousand　francs？　　Why！　not　a　civil　list？　　What　meanness！　　Are　we　really　guilty　of　chaffering　with　an　artist　like　Mademoiselle　Rachel？
  It　is　said；　in　reply；　that　the　managers　of　the　theatre　cannot　give　more　without　incurring　a　loss；　that　they　admit　the　superior　talent　of　their　young　associate；　but　that；　in　fixing　her　salary；　they　have　been　compelled　to　take　the　account　of　the　company's　receipts　and　expenses　into　consideration　also。
  That　is　just；　but　it　only　confirms　what　I　have　said；　namely；　that　an　artist's　talent　may　be　infinite；　but　that　its　mercenary　claims　are　necessarily　limited；on　the　one　hand；　by　its　usefulness　to　the　society　which　rewards　it；　on　the　other；　by　the　resources　of　this　society：　in　other　words；　that　the　demand　of　the　seller　is　balanced　by　the　right　of　the　buyer。
  Mademoiselle　Rachel；　they　say；　brings　to　the　treasury　of　the　Theatre…Francais　more　than　sixty　thousand　francs。　　I　admit　it；　but　then　I　blame　the　theatre。　　From　whom　does　the　Theatre…　Francais　take　this　money？　　From　some　curious　people　who　are　perfectly　free。　　Yes；　but　the　workingmen；　the　lessees；　the　tenants；　those　who　borrow　by　pawning　their　possessions；　from　whom　these　curious　people　recover　all　that　they　pay　to　the　theatre；　are　they　free？　　And　when　the　better　part　of　their　products　are　consumed　by　others　at　the　play；　do　you　assure　me　that　their　families　are　not　in　want？　　Until　the　French　people；　reflecting　on　the　salaries　paid　to　all　artists；　savants；　and　public　functionaries；　have　plainly　expressed　their　wish　and　judgment　as　to　the　matter；　the　salaries　of　Mademoiselle　Rachel　and　all　her　fellow…artists　will　be　a　compulsory　tax　extorted　by　violence；　to　reward　pride；　and　support　libertinism。
  It　is　because　we　are　neither　free　nor　sufficiently　enlightened；　that　we　submit　to　be　cheated　in　our　bargains；　that　the　laborer　pays　the　duties　levied　by　the　prestige　of　power　and　the　selfishness　of　talent　upon　the　curiosity　of　the　idle；　and　that　we　are　perpetually　scandalized　by　these　monstrous　inequalities　which　are　encouraged　and　applauded　by　public　opinion。
  The　whole　nation；　and　the　nation　only；　pays　its　authors；　its　savants；　its　artists；　its　officials；　whatever　be　the　hands　through　which　their　salaries　pass。　　On　what　basis　should　it　pay　them？　　On　the　basis　of　equality。　　I　have　prove