science　with　science　itself。　　Finally；　all　these　operations　completed；　I　had　to　give　a　judicial　decision。
  I　therefore　declared；　my　hand　upon　my　heart；　before　God　and　men；　that　the　causes　of　social　inequality　are　three　in　number：　　1。　GRATUITOUS　APPROPRIATION　OF　COLLECTIVE　WEALTH；　2。　INEQUALITY　IN　EXCHANGE；　3。　THE　RIGHT　OF　PROFIT　OR　INCREASE。
  And　since　this　threefold　method　of　extortion　is　the　very　essence　of　the　domain　of　property；　I　denied　the　legitimacy　of　property；　and　proclaimed　its　identity　with　robbery。
  That　is　my　only　offence。　　I　have　reasoned　upon　property；　I　have　searched　for　the　criterion　of　justice；　I　have　demonstrated；　not　the　possibility；　but　the　necessity；　of　equality　of　fortunes；　I　have　allowed　myself　no　attack　upon　persons；　no　assault　upon　the　government；　of　which　I；　more　than　any　one　else；　am　a　provisional　adherent。　　If　I　have　sometimes　used　the　word　PROPRIETOR；　I　have　used　it　as　the　abstract　name　of　a　metaphysical　being；　whose　reality　breathes　in　every　individual；not　alone　in　a　privileged　few。
  Nevertheless；　I　acknowledgefor　I　wish　my　confession　to　be　sincerethat　the　general　tone　of　my　book　has　been　bitterly　censured。　　They　complain　of　an　atmosphere　of　passion　and　invective　unworthy　of　an　honest　man；　and　quite　out　of　place　in　the　treatment　of　so　grave　a　subject。
  If　this　reproach　is　well　founded　（which　it　is　impossible　for　me　either　to　deny　or　admit；　because　in　my　own　cause　I　cannot　be　judge）；if；　I　say；　I　deserve　this　charge；　I　can　only　humble　myself　and　acknowledge　myself　guilty　of　an　involuntary　wrong；　the　only　excuse　that　I　could　offer　being　of　such　a　nature　that　it　ought　not　to　be　communicated　to　the　public。　　All　that　I　can　say　is；　that　I　understand　better　than　any　one　how　the　anger　which　injustice　causes　may　render　an　author　harsh　and　violent　in　his　criticisms。　　When；　after　twenty　years　of　labor；　a　man　still　finds　himself　on　the　brink　of　starvation；　and　then　suddenly　discovers　in　an　equivocation；　an　error　in　calculation；　the　cause　of　the　evil　which　torments　him　in　common　with　so　many　millions　of　his　fellows；　he　can　scarcely　restrain　a　cry　of　sorrow　and　dismay。
  But；　sir；　though　pride　be　offended　by　my　rudeness；　it　is　not　to　pride　that　I　apologize；　but　to　the　proletaires；　to　the　simple…　minded；　whom　I　perhaps　have　scandalized。　　My　angry　dialectics　may　have　produced　a　bad　effect　on　some　peaceable　minds。　　Some　poor　workingmanmore　affected　by　my　sarcasm　than　by　the　strength　of　my　argumentsmay；　perhaps；　have　concluded　that　property　is　the　result　of　a　perpetual　Machiavelianism　on　the　part　of　the　governors　against　the　governed；a　deplorable　error　of　which　my　book　itself　is　the　best　refutation。　　I　devoted　two　chapters　to　showing　how　property　springs　from　human　personality　and　the　comparison　of　individuals。　　Then　I　explained　its　perpetual　limitation；　and；　following　out　the　same　idea；　I　predicted　its　approaching　disappearance。　　How；　then；　could　the　editors　of　the　〃Revue　Democratique；〃　after　having　borrowed　from　me　nearly　the　whole　substance　of　their　economical　articles；　dare　to　say：　　〃The　holders　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