Nevertheless；　you　all　feel　that　a　revolution　is　to　come；　and　that　you　alone　can　accomplish　it。　　What；　then；　is　the　idea　which　governs　you；　proletaires　of　the　nineteenth　century？for　really　I　cannot　call　you　revolutionists。　　What　do　you　think？what　do　you　believe？what　do　you　want？　　Be　guarded　in　your　reply。　　I　have　read　faithfully　your　favorite　journals；　your　most　esteemed　authors。　　I　find　everywhere　only　vain　and　puerile　_entites_；　nowhere　do　I　discover　an　idea。
  I　will　explain　the　meaning　of　this　word　_entite_；new；　without　doubt；　to　most　of　you。
  By　_entite_　is　generally　understood　a　substance　which　the　imagination　grasps；　but　which　is　incognizable　by　the　senses　and　the　reason。　　Thus　the　SOPORIFIC　POWER　of　opium；　of　which　Sganarelle　speaks；　and　the　PECCANT　HUMORS　of　ancient　medicine；　are　_entites_。　　The　_entite_　is　the　support　of　those　who　do　not　wish　to　confess　their　ignorance。　　It　is　incomprehensible；　or；　as　St。　Paul　says；　the　_argumentum　non　apparentium_。　　In　philosophy；　the　_entite_　is　often　only　a　repetition　of　words　which　add　nothing　to　the　thought。
  For　example；　when　M。　Pierre　Lerouxwho　says　so　many　excellent　things；　but　who　is　too　fond；　in　my　opinion；　of　his　Platonic　formulasassures　us　that　the　evils　of　humanity　are　due　to　our　IGNORANCE　OF　LIFE；　M。　Pierre　Leroux　utters　an　_entite；_　for　it　is　evident　that　if　we　are　evil　it　is　because　we　do　not　know　how　to　live；　but　the　knowledge　of　this　fact　is　of　no　value　to　us。
  When　M。　Edgar　Quinet　declares　that　France　suffers　and　declines　because　there　is　an　ANTAGONISM　of　men　and　of　interests；　he　declares　an　_entite；_　for　the　problem　is　to　discover　the　cause　of　this　antagonism。
  When　M。　Lamennais；　in　thunder　tones；　preaches　self…sacrifice　and　love；　he　proclaims　two　_entites_；　for　we　need　to　know　on　what　conditions　self…sacrifice　and　love　can　spring　up　and　exist。
  So　also；　proletaires；　when　you　talk　of　LIBERTY；　PROGRESS；　and　THE　SOVEREIGNTY　OF　THE　PEOPLE；　you　make　of　these　naturally　intelligible　things　so　many　_entites_　in　space：　for；　on　the　one　hand；　we　need　a　new　definition　of　liberty；　since　that　of　'89　no　longer　suffices；　and；　on　the　other；　we　must　know　in　what　direction　society　should　proceed　in　order　to　be　in　progress。　　As　for　the　sovereignty　of　the　people；　that　is　a　grosser　_entite_　than　the　sovereignty　of　reason；　it　is　the　_entite_　of　_entites_。　　In　fact；　since　sovereignty　can　no　more　be　conceived　of　outside　of　the　people　than　outside　of　reason；　it　remains　to　be　ascertained　who；　among　the　people；　shall　exercise　the　sovereignty；　and；　among　so　many　minds；　which　shall　be　the　sovereigns。　　To　say　that　the　people　should　elect　their　representatives　is　to　say　that　the　people　should　recognize　their　sovereigns；　which　does　not　remove　the　difficulty　at　all。
  But　suppose　that；　equal　by　birth；　equal　before　the　law；　equal　in　personality；　equal　in　social　functions；　you　wish　also　to　be　equal　in　conditions。
  Suppose　that；　perceiving　all　the　mutual　relations　of　men；　whether　they　produce　or　exchange　or　consume；　to　be　relations　of　commutative　justice；in　a　word；　social　relations；　suppose；　I　say；　that；　perceiving　this；　you　wish　to　give　this　natural　society　a　legal　existence；　and　to　establish　the　fact　by　law；
  I　say　that　then　you　need　a　clear；　positive；　and　exact　expression　of　your　whole　idea；that　is；　an　expression　which　states　at　once　the　principle；　the　means；　and　the　end；　and　I　add　that　that　expression　is　ASSOCIATION。
  And　since　the　association　of　the　human　race　dates；　at　least　rightfully；　from　the　beginning　of　the　world；　and　has　gradually　established　and　perfected　itself　by　successively　divesting　itself　of　its　negative　elements；　slavery；　nobility；　despotism；　aristocracy；　and　feudalism；I　say　that；　to　eliminate　the　last　negation　of　society；　to　formulate　the　last　revolutionary　idea；　you　must　change　your　old　rallying…cries；　NO　MORE　ABSOLUTISM；　NO　MORE　NOBILITY；　NO　MORE　SLAVES！　into　that　of　NO　MORE　PROPERTY！　。　。　。
  But　I　know　what　astonishes　you；　poor　souls；　blasted　by　the　wind　of　poverty；　and　crushed　by　your　patrons'　pride：　it　is　EQUALITY；　whose　consequences　frighten　you。　　How；　you　have　said　in　your　journal；how　can　we　〃dream　of　a　level　which；　being　unnatural；　is　therefore　unjust？　　How　shall　we　pay　the　day's　labor　of　a　Cormenin　or　a　Lamennais？〃
  Plebeians；　listen！　　When；　after　the　battle　of　Salamis；　the　Athenians　assembled　to　award　the　prizes　for　courage；　after　the　ballots　had　been　collected；　it　was　found　that　each　combatant　had　one　vote　for　the　first　prize；　and　Themistocles　all　the　votes　for　the　second。　　The　people　of　Minerva　were　crowned　by　their　own　hands。　　Truly　heroic　souls！　all　were　worthy　of　the　olive…branch；　since　all　had　ventured　to　claim　it　for　themselves。　　Antiquity　praised　this　sublime　spirit。　　Learn；　proletaires；　to　esteem　yourselves；　and　to　respect　your　dignity。　　You　wish　to　be　free；　and　you　know　not　how　to　be　citizens。　　Now；　whoever　says　〃citizens〃　necessarily　says　equals。
  If　I　should　call　myself　Lamennais　or　Cormenin；　and　some　journal；　speaking　of　me；　should　burst　forth　with　these　hyperboles；　INCOMPARABLE　GENIUS；　SUPERIOR　MIND；　CONSUMMATE　VIRTUE；　NOBLE　CHARACTER；　I　should　not　like　it；　and　should　complain；first；　because　such　eulogies　are　never　deserved；　and；　second；　because　they　furnish　a　bad　example。　　But　I　wish；　in　order　to　reconcile　you　to　equality；　to　measure　for　you　the　greatest　literary　personage　of　our　century。　　Do　not　accuse　me　of　envy；　proletaires；　if　I；　a　defender　of　equality；　estimate　at　their　proper　value　talents　which　are　universally　admired；　and　which　I；　better　than　any　one；　know　how　to　recognize。　　A　dwarf　can　always　measure　a　giant：　all　that　he　needs　is　a　yardstick。
  You　have　seen　the　pretentious　announcements　of　〃L'Esquisse　d'une　Philosophie；〃　and　you　have　admired　the　work　on　trust；　for　either　you　have　not　read　it；　or；　if　you　have；　you　are　incapable　of　judging　it。　　Acquaint　yourselves；　then；　with　this　speculation　more　brilliant　than　sound；　and；　while　admiring　the　enthusiasm　of　the　author；　cease　to　pity　those　useful　labors　which　only　habit　and　the　great　number　of　the　persons　engaged　in　them　render　contemptible。　　I　shall　be　brief；　for；　notwithstanding　the　importance　of　the　subject　and　the　genius　of　the　author；　what　I　have　to　say　is　of　but　little　moment。
  M。　Lamennais　starts　with　the　existence　of　God。　　How　does　he　demonstrate　it？　　By　Cicero's　argument；that　is；　by　the　consent　of　the　human　race。　　There　is　nothing　new　in　that。　　We　have　still　to　find　out　whether　the　belief　of　the　human　race　is　legitimate；　or；　as　Kant　says；　whether　our　subjective　certainty　of　the　existence　of　God　corresponds　with　the　objective　truth。　　This；　however；　does　not　trouble　M。　Lamennais。　　He　says　that；　if　the　human　race　believes；　it　is　because　it　has　a　reason　for　believing。
  Then；　having　pronounced　the　name　of　God；　M。　Lamennais　sings　a　hymn；　and　that　is　his　demonstration！
  This　first　hypothesis　admitted；　M。　Lamennais　follows　it　with　a　second；　namely；　that　there　are　three　persons　in　God。　　But；　while　Christianity　teaches　the　dogma　of　the　Trinity　only　on　the　authority　of　revelation；　M。　Lamennais　pretends　to　arrive　at　it　by　the　sole　force　of　argument；　and　he　does　not　perceive　that　his　pretended　demonstration　is；　from　beginning　to　end；　anthropomorphism；that　is；　an　ascription　of　the　faculties　of　the　human　mind　and　the　powers　of　nature　to　the　Divine　substance。　　New　songs；　new　hymns！
  God　and　the　Trinity　thus　DEMONSTRATED；　the　philosopher　passes　to　the　creation；a　third　hypothesis；　in　which　M。　Lamennais；　always　eloquent；　varied；　and　sublime；　DEMONSTRATES　that　God　made　the　world　neither　of　nothing；　nor　of　something；　nor　of　himself；　that　he　was　free　in　creating；　but　that　nevertheless　he　could　not　but　create；　that　there　is　in　matter　a　matter　which　is　not　matter；　that　the　archetypal　ideas　of　the　world　are　separated　from　each　other；　in　the　Divine　mind；　by　a　division　which　is　obscure　and　unintelligible；　and　yet　substantial　and　real；　which　involves　intelligibility；　&c。　　We　meet　with　like　contradictions　concerning　the　origin　of　evil。　　To　explain　this　problem；one　of　the　profoundest　in　philosophy；M。　Lamennais　at　one　time　denies　evil；　at　another　makes　God　the　author　of　evil；　and　at　still　another　seeks　outside　of　God　a　first　cause　which　is　not　God；an　amalgam　of　_entites_　more　or　less　incoherent；　borrowed　from　Plato；　Proclus；　Spinoza；　I　might　say　even　from　all　philosophers。
  Having　thus　established　his　trinity　of　hypotheses；　M。　Lamennais　deduces　therefrom；　by　a　badly　connected　chain　of　analogies；　his　whole　philosophy。　　And　it　is　here　especially　that　we　notice　the　syncretism　which　is　peculiar　to　him。　　The　theory　of　M。　Lamennais　embraces　all　systems；　and　supports　all　opinions。　　Are　you　a　materialist？　　Suppress；　as　useless　_entites_；　the　three　persons　in　God；　then；　starting　directly　from　heat；　light；　and　electro…　magnetism；which；　according　to　the　author；　are　the　three　original　fluids；　the　three　primary　external　manifestations　of　Will；　Intelligence；　and　Love；you　have　a　materialistic　and　atheistic　cosmogony。　　On　the　contrary；　are　you　wedded　to　spiritualism？　　With　the　theory　of　the　immateriality　of　the　body；　you　are　able　to　see　everywhere　nothing　but　spirits。　　Finally；　if　you　incline　to　pantheism；　you　will　be　satisfied　by　M。　Lamennais；　who　formally　teaches　that　the　world　is　not　an　EMANATION　from　Divinity