f　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。
  But　what　am　I　saying？　　May　evil　befall　me；　if　I　blame　the　poor　creatures！　　Oh！　let　us　not　despise　those　generous　souls；　who　in　the　excitement　of　their　patriotism　are　always　prompt　to　identify　the　voice　of　their　chiefs　with　the　truth。　　Let　us　encourage　rather　their　simple　credulity；　enlighten　complacently　and　tenderly　their　precious　sincerity；　and　reserve　our　shafts　for　those　vain…glorious　spirits　who　are　always　admiring　their　genius；　and；　in　different　tongues；　caressing　the　people　in　order　to　govern　them。
  These　considerations　alone　oblige　me　to　reply　to　the　strange　and　superficial　conclusions　of　the　〃Journal　du　Peuple〃　（issue　of　Oct。　11；　1840）；　on　the　question　of　property。　　I　leave；　therefore；　the　journalist　to　address　myself　only　to　his　readers。　　I　hope　that　the　self…love　of　the　writer　will　not　be　offended；　if；　in　the　presence　of　the　masses；　I　ignore　an　individual。
  You　say；　proletaires　of　the　〃Peuple；〃　〃For　the　very　reason　that　men　and　things　exist；　there　always　will　be　men　who　will　possess　things；　nothing；　therefore；　can　destroy　property。〃
  In　speaking　thus；　you　unconsciously　argue　exactly　after　the　manner　of　M。　Cousin；　who　always　reasons　from　_possession_　to　PROPERTY。　　This　coincidence；　however；　does　not　surprise　me。　　M。　Cousin　is　a　philosopher　of　much　mind；　and　you；　proletaires；　have　still　more。　　Certainly　it　is　honorable；　even　for　a　philosopher；　to　be　your　companion　in　error。
  Originally；　the　word　PROPERTY　was　synonymous　with　PROPER　or　INDIVIDUAL　POSSESSION。　　It　designated　each　individual's　special　right　to　the　use　of　a　thing。　　But　when　this　right　of　use；　inert　（if　I　may　say　so）　as　it　was　with　regard　to　the　other　usufructuaries；　became　active　and　paramount；that　is；　when　the　usufructuary　converted　his　right　to　personally　use　the　thing　into　the　right　to　use　it　by　his　neighbor's　labor；then　property　changed　its　nature；　and　its　idea　became　complex。　　The　legists　knew　this　very　well；　but　instead　of　opposing；　as　they　ought；　this　accumulation　of　profits；　they　accepted　and　sanctioned　the　whole。　　And　as　the　right　of　farm…rent　necessarily　implies　the　right　of　use；in　other　words；　as　the　right　to　cultivate　land　by　the　labor　of　a　slave　supposes　one's　power　to　cultivate　it　himself；　according　to　the　principle　that　the　greater　includes　the　less；　the　name　property　was　reserved　to　designate　this　double　right；　and　that　of　possession　was　adopted　to　designate　the　right　of　use。
  Whence　property　came　to　be　called　the　perfect　right；　the　right　of　domain；　the　eminent　right；　the　heroic　or　_quiritaire_　right；in　Latin；　_jus　perfectum；　jus　optimum；　jus　quiritarium；　jus　dominii_；while　possession　became　assimilated　to　farm…rent。
  Now；　that　individual　possession　exists　of　right；　or；　better；　from　natural　necessity；　all　philosophers　admit；　and　can　easily　e　demonstrated；　but　when；　in　imitation　of　M。　Cousin；　we　assume　it　to　be　the　basis　of　the　domain　of　property；　we　fall　into　the　sophism　called　_sophisma　amphiboliae　vel　ambiguitatis_；　which　consists　in　changing　the　meaning　by　a　verbal　equivocation。
  People　often　think　themselves　very　profound；　because；　by　the　aid　of　expressions　of　extreme　generality；　they　appear　to　rise　to　the　height　of　absolute　ideas；　and　thus　deceive　inexperienced　minds；　and；　what　is　worse；　this　is　commonly　called　EXAMINING　ABSTRACTIONS。　　But　the　abstraction　formed　by　the　comparison　of　identical　facts　is　one　thing；　while　that　which　is　deduced　from　different　acceptations　of　the　same　term　is　quite　another。　　The　first　gives　the　universal　idea；　the　axiom；　the　law；　the　second　indicates　the　order　of　generation　of　ideas。　　All　our　errors　arise　from　the　constant　confusion　of　these　two　kinds　of　abstractions。　　In　this　particular；　languages　and　philosophies　are　alike　deficient。　　The　less　common　an　idiom　is；　and　the　more　obscure　its　terms；　the　more　prolific　is　it　as　a　source　of　error：　a　philosopher　is　sophistical　in　proportion　to　his　ignorance　of　any　method　of　neutralizing　this　imperfection　in　language。　　If　the　art　of　correcting　the　errors　of　speech　by　scientific　methods　is　ever　discovered；　then　philosophy　will　have　found　its　criterion　of　certainty。
  Now；　then；　the　difference　between　property　and　possession　being　well　established；　and　it　being　settled　that　the　former；　for　the　reasons　which　I　have　just　given；　must　necessarily　disappear；　is　it　best；　for　the　slight　advantage　of　restoring　an　etymology；　to　retain　the　word　PROPERTY？　　My　opinion　is　that　it　would　be　very　unwise　to　do　so；　and　I　will　tell　why。　　I　quote　from　the　〃Journal　du　Peuple：〃
  〃To　the　legislative　power　belongs　the　right　to　regulate　property；　to　prescribe　the　conditions　of　acquiring；　possessing；　and　transmitting　it。　。　。　　It　cannot　be　denied　that　inheritance；　assessment；　commerce；　industry；　labor；　and　wages　require　the　most　important　modifications。〃
  You　wish；　proletaires；　to　REGULATE　PROPERTY；　that　is；　you　wish　to　destroy　it　and　reduce　it　to　the　right　of　possession。　　For　to　regulate　property　without　the　consent　of　the　proprietors　is　to　deny　the　right　OF　DOMAIN；　to　associate　employees　with　proprietors　is　to　destroy　the　EMINENT　right；　to　suppress　or　even　reduce　farm…rent；　house…rent；　revenue；　and　increase　generally；　is　to　annihilate　PERFECT　property。　　Why；　then；　while　laboring　with　such　laudable　enthusiasm　for　the　establishment　of　equality；　should　you　retain　an　expression　whose　equivocal　meaning　will　always　be　an　obstacle　in　the　way　of　your　success？
  There　you　have　the　first　reasona　wholly　philosophical　onefor　rejecting　not　only　the　thing；　but　the　name；　property。　　Here　now　is　the　political；　the　highest　reason。
  Every　social　revolutionM。　Cousin　will　tell　youis　effected　only　by　the　realization　of　an　idea；　either　political；　moral；　or　religious。　　When　Alexander　conquered　Asia；　his　idea　was　to　avenge　Greek　liberty　against　the　insults　of　Oriental　despotism；　when　Marius　and　Caesar　overthrew　the　Roman　patricians；　their　idea　was　to　give　bread　to　the　people；　when　Christianity　revolutionized　the　world；　its　idea　was　to　emancipate　mankind；　and　to　substitute　the　worship　of　one　God　for　the　deities　of　Epicurus　and　Homer；　when　France　rose　in　'89；　her　idea　was　liberty　and　equality　before　the　law。　　There　has　been　no　true　revolution；　says　M。　Cousin；　with　out　its　idea；　so　that　where　an　idea　does　not　exist；　or　even　fails　of　a　formal　expression；　revolution　is　impossible。　　There　are　mobs；　conspirators；　rioters；　regicides。　　There　are　no　revolutionists。　　Society；　devoid　of　ideas；　twists　and　tosses　about；　and　dies　in　the　midst　of　its　fruitless　labor。
  Nevertheless；　you　all　feel　that　a　revolution　is　to　come；　and　that　you　alone　can　accomplish　it。　　What；　then；　is　the　idea　which