eated　separately；　so　the　former　has　its　ensemble；　its　instruments；　and　its　causes。　　Of　course　I　do　not　pretend　that　the　principle　of　property　is　a　complete　resume　of　all　the　social　forces；　but；　as　in　that　wonderful　machine　which　we　call　our　body；　the　harmony　of　the　whole　allows　us　to　draw　a　general　conclusion　from　the　consideration　of　a　single　function　or　organ；　so；　in　discussing　historical　causes；　I　have　been　able　to　reason　with　absolute　accuracy　from　a　single　order　of　facts；　certain　as　I　was　of　the　perfect　correlation　which　exists　between　this　special　order　and　universal　history。　　As　is　the　property　of　a　nation；　so　is　its　family；　its　marriage；　its　religion；　its　civil　and　military　organization；　and　its　legislative　and　judicial　institutions。　　History；　viewed　from　this　standpoint；　is　a　grand　and　sublime　psychological　study。
  Well；　sir；　in　writing　against　property；　have　I　done　more　than　quote　the　language　of　history？　　I　have　said　to　modern　society；　the　daughter　and　heiress　of　all　preceding　societies；_Age　guod　agis：_　complete　the　task　which　for　six　thousand　years　you　have　been　executing　under　the　inspiration　and　by　the　command　of　God；　hasten　to　finish　your　journey；　turn　neither　to　the　right　nor　the　left；　but　follow　the　road　which　lies　before　you。　　You　seek　reason；　law；　unity；　and　discipline；　but　hereafter　you　can　find　them　only　by　stripping　off　the　veils　of　your　infancy；　and　ceasing　to　follow　instinct　as　a　guide。　　Awaken　your　sleeping　conscience；　open　your　eyes　to　the　pure　light　of　reflection　and　science；　behold　the　phantom　which　troubled　your　dreams；　and　so　long　kept　you　in　a　state　of　unutterable　anguish。　　Know　thyself；　O　long…deluded　society＇1＇　know　thy　enemy！　。　。　。　　And　I　have　denounced　property。
  We　often　hear　the　defenders　of　the　right　of　domain　quote　in　defence　of　their　views　the　testimony　of　nations　and　ages。　　We　can　judge；　from　what　has　just　been　said；　how　far　this　historical　argument　conforms　to　the　real　facts　and　the　conclusions　of　science。
  To　complete　this　apology；　I　must　examine　the　various　theories。
  Neither　politics；　nor　legislation；　nor　history；　can　be　explained　and　understood；　without　a　positive　theory　which　defines　their　elements；　and　discovers　their　laws；　in　short；　without　a
  philosophy。　　Now；　the　two　principal　schools；　which　to　this　day　divide　the　attention　of　the　world；　do　not　satisfy　this　condition。
  The　first；　essentially　PRACTICAL　in　its　character；　confined　to　a　statement　of　facts；　and　buried　in　learning；　cares　very　little　by　what　laws　humanity　develops　itself。　　To　it　these　laws　are　the　secret　of　the　Almighty；　which　no　one　can　fathom　without　a　commission　from　on　high。　　In　applying　the　facts　of　history　to　government；　this　school　does　not　reason；　it　does　not　anticipate；　it　makes　no　comparison　of　the　past　with　the　present；　in　order　to　predict　the　future。　　In　its　opinion；　the　lessons　of　experience　teach　us　only　to　repeat　old　errors；　and　its　whole　philosophy　consists　in　perpetually　retracing　the　tracks　of　antiquity；　instead　of　going　straight　ahead　forever　in　the　direction　in　which　they　point。
  The　second　school　may　be　called　either　FATALISTIC　or　PANTHEISTIC。　　To　it　the　movements　of　empires　and　the　revolutions　of　humanity　are　the　manifestations；　the　incarnations；　of　the　Almighty。　　The　human　race；　identified　with　the　divine　essence；　wheels　in　a　circle　of　appearances；　informations；　and　destructions；　which　necessarily　excludes　the　idea　of　absolute　truth；　and　destroys　providence　and　liberty。
  Corresponding　to　these　two　schools　of　history；　there　are　two　schools　of　jurisprudence；　similarly　opposed；　and　possessed　of　the　same　peculiarities。
  1。　The　practical　and　conventional　school；　to　which　the　law　is　always　a　creation　of　the　legislator；　an　expression　of　his　will；　a　privilege　which　he　condescends　to　grant；in　short；　a　gratuitous　affirmation　to　be　regarded　as　judicious　and　legitimate；　no　matter　what　it　declares。
  2。　The　fatalistic　and　pantheistic　school；　sometimes　called　the　historical　school；　which　opposes　the　despotism　of　the　first；　and　maintains　that　law；　like　literature　and　religion；　is　always　the　expression　of　society；its　manifestation；　its　form；　the　external　realization　of　its　mobile　spirit　and　its　ever…changing　inspirations。
  Each　of　these　schools；　denying　the　absolute；　rejects　thereby　all　positive　and　a　priori　philosophy。
  Now；　it　is　evident　that　the　theories　of　these　two　schools；　whatever　view　we　take　of　them；　are　utterly　unsatisfactory：　for；　opposed；　they　form　no　dilemma；that　is；　if　one　is　false；　it　does　not　follow　that　the　other　is　true；　and；　united；　they　do　not　constitute　the　truth；　since　they　disregard　the　absolute；　without　which　there　is　no　truth。　　They　are　respectively　a　THESIS　and　an　ANTITHESIS。　　There　remains　to　be　found；　then；　a　SYNTHESIS；　which；　predicating　the　absolute；　justifies　the　will　of　the　legislator；　explains　the　variations　of　the　law；　annihilates　the　theory　of　the　circular　movement　of　humanity；　and　demonstrates　its　progress。
  The　legists；　by　the　very　nature　of　their　studies　and　in　spite　of　their　obstinate　prejudices；　have　been　led　irresistibly　to　suspect　that　the　absolute　in　the　science　of　law　is　not　as　chimerical　as　is　commonly　supposed；　and　this　suspicion　arose　from　their　comparison　of　the　various　relations　which　legislators　have　been　called　upon　to　regulate。
  M。　Laboulaye；　the　laureate　of　the　Institute；　begins　his　〃History　of　Property〃　with　these　words：
  〃While　the　law　of　contract；　which　regulates　only　the　mutual　interests　of　men；　has　not　varied　for　centuries　（except　in　certain　forms　which　relate　more　to　the　proof　than　to　the　character　of　the　obligation）；　the　civil　law　of　property；　which　regulates　the　mutual　relations　of　citizens；　has　undergone　several　radical　changes；　and　has　kept　pace　in　its　variations　with　all　the　vicissitudes　of　society。　　The　law　of　contract；　which　holds　essentially　to　those　principles　of　eternal　justice　which　are　engraven　upon　the　depths　of　the　human　heart；　is　the　immutable　element　of　jurisprudence；　and；　in　a　certain　sense；　its　philosophy。　　Property；　on　the　contrary；　is　the　variable　element　of　jurisprudence；　its　history；　its　policy。〃
  Marvellous！　　There　is　in　law；　and　consequently　in　politics；　something　variable　and　something　invariable。　　The　invariable　element　is　obligation；　the　bond　of　justice；　duty；　the　variable　element　is　property；that　is；　the　external　form　of　law；　the　subject…matter　of　the　contract。　　Whence　it　follows　that　the　law　can　modify；　change；　reform；　and　judge　property。　　Reconcile　that；　if　you　can；　with　the　idea　of　an　eternal；　absolute；　permanent；　and　indefectible　right。
  However；　M。　Laboulaye　is　in　perfect　accord　with　himself　when　he　adds；　〃Possession　of　the　soil　rests　solely　upon　force　until　society　takes　it　in　hand；　and　espouses　the　cause　of　the　possessor；〃＇1＇　and；　a　little　farther；　〃The　right　of　property　is　not　natural；　but　social。　　The　laws　not　only　protect　property：　they　give　it　birth；〃　&c。　　Now；　that　which　the　law　has　made　the　law　can　unmake；　especially　since；　according　to　M。　Laboulaye；an　avowed　partisan　of　the　historical　or　pantheistic　school；the　law　is　not　absolute；　is　not　an　idea；　but　a　form。
  ＇1＇　　The　same　opinion　was　recently　expressed　from　the　tribune　by　one　of　our　most　honorable　Deputies；　M。　Gauguier。　　〃Nature；〃　said　he；　〃has　not　endowed　man　with　landed　property。〃　　Changing　the　adjective　LANDED；　which　designates　only　a　species　into　CAPITALISTIC；　which　denotes　the　genus；M。　Gauguier　made　an　egalitaire　profession　of　faith。
  But　why　is　it　that　property　is　variable；　and；　unlike　obligation；　incapable　of　definition　and　settlement？　　Before　affirming；　somewhat　boldly　without　doubt；　that　in　right　there　are　no　absolute　principles　（the　most　dangerous；　most　immoral；　most　tyrannicalin　a　word；　most　anti…socialassertion　imaginable）；　it　was　proper　that　the　right　of　property　should　be　subjected　to　a　thorough　examination；　in　order　to　put　in　evidence　its　variable；　arbitrary；　and　contingent　elements；　and　those　which　are　eternal；　legitimate；　and　absolute；　then；　this　operation　performed；　it　became　easy　to　account　for　the　laws；　and　to　correct　all　the　codes。
  Now；　this　examination　of　property　I　claim　to　have　made；　and　in　the　fullest　detail；　but；　either　from　the　public's　lack　of　interest　in　an　unrecommended　and　unattractive　pamphlet；　orwhich　is　more　probablefrom　the　weakness　of　exposition　and　want　of　genius　which　characterize　the　work；　the　First　Memoir　on　Property　passed　unnoticed；　scarcely　would　a　few　communists；　having　turned　its　leaves；　deign　to　brand　it　with　their　disapprobation。　　You　alone；　sir；　in　spite　of　the　disfavor　which　I　showed　for　your　economical　predecessors　in　too　severe　a　criticism　of　them；you　alone　have　judged　me　justly；　and　although　I　cannot　accept；　at　least　literally；　your　first　judgment；　yet　it　is　to　you　alone　that　I　appeal　from　a　decision　too　equivocal　to　be　regarded　as　final。
  It　not　being　my　intention　to　enter　at　present　into　a　discussion　of　principles；　I　shall　content　myself　with　estimating；　from　the　point　of　view　of　this　simple　and　intelligible　absolute；　the　theories　of　property　which　our　generation　has　produced。
  The　most　exact　idea　of　property　is　given　us　by　the　Roman　law；　faithfully　followed　in　this　particular　by　the　ancient　legists。　　It　is　the　absolute；　exclusive；　autocratic　domain　of　a　man　over　a