God and the State by Michael Bakunin [1814-1876]

Chapter I, II, III, IV

I
Who are right, the idealists or the materialists? The question once stated in this way hesitation becomes impossible. Undoubtedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. Yes, acts are be ore ideas! yes, the ideal, as "roudhon said, is but a lower, whose root lies in the material conditions o e#istence. Yes, the whole history o humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, is but a re lection o its economic history. $ll branches o modem science, o true and disinterested science, concur in proclaiming this grand truth, undamental and decisi%e& The social world, properly spea'ing, the human world(in short, humanity(is nothing other than the last and supreme de%elopment(at least on our planet and as ar as we 'now(the highest mani estation o animality. )ut as e%ery de%elopment necessarily implies a negation, that o its base or point o departure, humanity is at the same time and essentially the deliberate and gradual negation o the animal element in man! and it is precisely this negation, as rational as it is natural, and rational only because natural(at once historical and logical, as ine%itable as the de%elopment and reali*ation o all the natural laws in the world(that constitutes and creates the ideal, the world o intellectual and moral con%ictions, ideas. Yes, our irst ancestors, our $dams and our +%es, were, i not gorillas, %ery near relati%es o gorillas, omni%orous, intelligent and erocious beasts, endowed in a higher degree than the animals o another species with two precious aculties(the power to think and the desire to rebel. These aculties, combining their progressi%e action in history, represent the essential actor, the negati%e power in the positi%e de%elopment o human animality, and create consequently all that constitutes humanity in man. The )ible, which is a %ery interesting and here and there %ery pro ound boo' when considered as one o the oldest sur%i%ing mani estations o human wisdom and ancy, e#presses this truth %ery nai%ely in its myth o original sin. ,eho%ah, who o all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most -ealous, the most %ain, the most erocious, the most un-ust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty(,eho%ah had -ust created $dam and +%e, to

satis y we 'now not what caprice! no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh hea%y on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might ha%e some new sla%es. .e generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its ruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete en-oyment. .e e#pressly orbade them rom touching the ruit o the tree o 'nowledge. .e wished, there ore, that man, destitute o all understanding o himsel , should remain an eternal beast, e%er on all( ours be ore the eternal /od, his creator and his master. )ut here steps in 0atan, the eternal rebel, the irst reethin'er and the emancipator o worlds. .e ma'es man ashamed o his bestial ignorance and obedience! he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal o liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat o the ruit o 'nowledge. We 'now what ollowed. The good /od, whose oresight, which is one o the di%ine aculties, should ha%e warned him o what would happen, lew into a terrible and ridiculous rage! he cursed 0atan, man, and the world created by himsel , stri'ing himsel so to spea' in his own creation, as children do when they get angry! and, not content with smiting our ancestors themsel%es, he cursed them in all the generations to come, innocent o the crime committed by their ore athers. 1ur Catholic and "rotestant theologians loo' upon that as %ery pro ound and %ery -ust, precisely because it is monstrously iniquitous and absurd. Then, remembering that he was not only a /od o %engeance and wrath, but also a /od o lo%e, a ter ha%ing tormented the e#istence o a ew milliards o poor human beings and condemned them to an eternal hell, he too' pity on the rest, and, to sa%e them and reconcile his eternal and di%ine lo%e with his eternal and di%ine anger, always greedy or %ictims and blood, he sent into the world, as an e#piatory %ictim, his only son, that he might be 'illed by men. That is called the mystery o the 2edemption, the basis o all the Christian religions. 0till, i the di%ine 0a%ior had sa%ed the human world3 )ut no! in the paradise promised by Christ, as we 'now, such being the ormal announcement, the elect will number %ery ew. The rest, the immense ma-ority o the generations present and to come, will burn eternally in hell. In the meantime, to console us, /od, e%er -ust, e%er good, hands o%er the earth to the go%ernment o the 4apoleon Thirds, o the William 5irsts, o the 5erdinands o $ustria, and o the $le#anders o all the 2ussias. 0uch are the absurd tales that are told and the monstrous doctrines that are taught, in the ull light o the nineteenth century, in all the public schools o +urope, at the e#press command o the go%ernment. They call this ci%ili*ing the people3 Is it not plain that all these go%ernments are systematic poisoners, interested stupe ies o the masses? I ha%e wandered rom my sub-ect, because anger gets hold o me whene%er I thin' o the base and criminal means which they employ to 'eep the nations in perpetual sla%ery, undoubtedly that they may be the better able to leece them. 1 what consequence are the crimes o all the Tropmanns in the world compared with this crime o treason against humanity committed daily, in broad day, o%er the whole sur ace o the ci%ili*ed world, by those who dare to call themsel%es the guardians and the athers o the people? I return to the myth o original sin.

/od admitted that 0atan was right! he recogni*ed that the de%il did not decei%e $dam and +%e in promising them 'nowledge and liberty as a reward or the act o disobedience which he bad induced them to commit! or, immediately they had eaten o the orbidden ruit, /od himsel said 6see )ible7& 8)ehold, the man is become as one o the gods, to 'now good and e%il! pre%ent him, there ore, rom eating o the ruit o eternal li e, lest he become immortal li'e 1ursel%es.9 :et us disregard now the abulous portion o this myth and consider its true meaning, which is %ery clear. ;an has emancipated himsel ! he has separated himsel rom animality and constituted himsel a man! he has begun his distincti%ely human history and de%elopment by an act o disobedience and science(that is, by rebellion and by thought. Three elements or, i you li'e, three undamental principles constitute the essential conditions o all human de%elopment, collecti%e or indi%idual, in history& 6<7 human animality; 6=7 thought; and 6>7 rebellion. To the irst properly corresponds social and private economy; to the second, science; to the third, liberty. Idealists o all schools, aristocrats and bourgeois, theologians and metaphysicians, politicians and moralists, religionists, philosophers, or poets, not orgetting the liberal economists(unbounded worshippers o the ideal, as we 'now(are much o ended when told that man, with his magni icent intelligence, his sublime ideas, and his boundless aspirations, is, li'e all else e#isting in the world, nothing but matter, only a product o vile matter. We may answer that the matter o which materialists spea', matter spontaneously and eternally mobile, acti%e, producti%e, matter chemically or organically determined and mani ested by the properties or orces, mechanical, physical, animal, and intelligent, which necessarily belong to it(that this matter has nothing in common with the vile matter o the idealists. The latter, a product o their alse abstraction, is indeed a stupid, inanimate, immobile thing, incapable o gi%ing birth to the smallest product, a caput mortuum, an ugly ancy in contrast to the beautiful ancy which they call God; as the opposite o this supreme being, matter, their matter, stripped by that constitutes its real nature, necessarily represents supreme nothingness. They ha%e ta'en away intelligence, li e, all its determining qualities, acti%e relations or orces, motion itsel , without which matter would not e%en ha%e weight, lea%ing it nothing but impenetrability and absolute immobility in space! they ha%e attributed all these natural orces, properties, and mani estations to the imaginary being created by their abstract ancy! then, interchanging rles, they ha%e called this product o their imagination, this phantom, this /od who is nothing, 9supreme )eing9 and, as a necessary consequence, ha%e declared that the real being, matter, the world, is nothing. $ ter which they gra%ely tell us that this matter is incapable o producing anything, not e%en o setting itsel in motion, and consequently must ha%e been created by their /od. $t the end o this boo' I e#posed the allacies and truly re%olting absurdities to which one is ine%itably led by this imagination o a /od, let him be considered as a personal being, the creator and organi*er o worlds! or e%en as impersonal, a 'ind o di%ine

soul spread o%er the whole uni%erse and constituting thus its eternal principle! or let him be an idea, in inite and di%ine, always present and acti%e in the world, and always mani ested by the totality o material and de inite beings. .ere I shall deal with one point only. The gradual de%elopment o the material world, as well as o organic animal li e and o the historically progressi%e intelligence o man, indi%idually or socially, is per ectly concei%able. It is a wholly natural mo%ement rom the simple to the comple#, rom the lower to the higher, rom the in erior to the superior! a mo%ement in con ormity with all our daily e#periences, and consequently in con ormity also with our natural logic, with the distincti%e laws o our mind, which being ormed and de%eloped only by the aid o these same e#periences! is, so to spea', but the mental, cerebral reproduction or re lected summary thereo . The system o the idealists is quite the contrary o this. It is the re%ersal o all human e#periences and o that uni%ersal and common good sense which is the essential condition o all human understanding, and which, in rising rom the simple and unanimously recogni*ed truth that twice two are our to the sublimest and most comple# scienti ic considerations(admitting, moreo%er, nothing that has not stood the se%erest tests o e#perience or obser%ation o things and acts(becomes the only serious basis o human 'nowledge. Very ar rom pursuing the natural order rom the lower to the higher, rom the in erior to the superior, and rom the relati%ely simple to the more comple#! instead o wisely and rationally accompanying the progressi%e and real mo%ement rom the world called inorganic to the world organic, %egetables, animal, and then distincti%ely human( rom chemical matter or chemical being to li%ing matter or li%ing being, and rom li%ing being to thin'ing being(the idealists, obsessed, blinded, and pushed on by the di%ine phantom which they ha%e inherited rom theology, ta'e precisely the opposite course. They go rom the higher to the lower, rom the superior to the in erior, rom the comple# to the simple. They begin with /od, either as a person or as di%ine substance or idea, and the irst step that they ta'e is a terrible all rom the sublime heights o the eternal ideal into the mire o the material world! rom absolute per ection into absolute imper ection! rom thought to being, or rather, rom supreme being to nothing. When, how, and why the di%ine being, eternal, in inite, absolutely per ect, probably weary o himsel , decided upon this desperate salto mortale is something which no idealist, no theologian, no metaphysician, no poet, has e%er been able to understand himsel or e#plain to the pro ane. $ll religions, past and present, and all the systems o transcendental philosophy hinge on this unique and iniquitous mystery.< .oly men, inspired lawgi%ers, prophets, messiahs, ha%e searched it or li e, and ound only torment and death. :i'e the ancient sphin#, it has de%oured them, because they could not e#plain it. /reat philosophers rom .eraclitus and "lato down to ?escartes, 0pino*a& :eibnit*, @ant, 5ichte, 0chelling, and .egel, not to mention the Indian philosophers, ha%e written heaps o %olumes and built systems as ingenious as sublime, in which they ha%e said by the way many beauti ul and grand things and disco%ered immortal truths, but they ha%e le t this mystery, the principal ob-ect o their transcendental in%estigations, as un athomable as be ore. The gigantic

e orts o the most Wonder ul geniuses that the world has 'nown, and who, one a ter another, or at least thirty centuries, ha%e underta'en anew this labor o 0isyphus, ha%e resulted only in rendering this mystery still more incomprehensible. Is it to be hoped that it will be un%eiled to us by the routine speculations o some pedantic disciple o an arti icially warmed(o%er metaphysics at a time when all li%ing and serious spirits ha%e abandoned that ambiguous science born o a compromise( historically e#plicable no doubt(between the unreason o aith and sound scienti ic reason? It is e%ident that this terrible mystery is ine#plicable(that is, absurd, because only the absurd admits o no e#planation. It is e%ident that whoe%er inds it essential to his happiness and li e must renounce his reason, and return, i he can, to nai%e, blind, stupid aith, to repeat with Tertullianus and all sincere belie%ers these words, which sum up the %ery quintessence o theology& Credo quia absurdum. Then all discussion ceases, and nothing remains but the triumphant stupidity o aith. )ut immediately there arises another question& How comes an intelligent and well informed man ever to feel the need of believing in this mystery! 4othing is more natural than that the belie in /od, the creator, regulator, -udge, master, curser, sa%ior, and bene actor o the world, should still pre%ail among the people, especially in the rural districts, where it is more widespread than among the proletariat o the cities. The people, un ortunately, are still %ery ignorant, and are 'ept in ignorance by the systematic e orts o all the go%ernments, who consider this ignorance, not without good reason, as one o the essential conditions o their own power. Weighted down by their daily labor, depri%ed o leisure, o intellectual intercourse, o reading, in short o all the means and a good portion o the stimulants that de%elop thought in men, the people generally accept religious traditions without criticism and in a lump. These traditions surround them rom in ancy in all the situations o li e, and arti icially sustained in their minds by a multitude o o icial poisoners o all sorts, priests and laymen, are trans ormed therein into a sort o mental and moral babit, too o ten more power ul e%en than their natural good sense. There is another reason which e#plains and in some sort -usti ies the absurd belie s o the people(namely, the wretched situation to which they ind themsel%es atally condemned by the economic organi*ation o society in the most ci%ili*ed countries o +urope. 2educed, intellectually and morally as well as materially, to the minimum o human e#istence, con ined in their li e li'e a prisoner in his prison, without hori*on, without outlet, without e%en a uture i we belie%e the economists, the people would ha%e the singularly narrow souls and blunted instincts o the bourgeois i they did not eel a desire to escape! but o escape there are but three methods(two chimerical and a third real. The irst two are the dram(shop and the church, debauchery o the body or debauchery o the mind! the third is social re%olution. .ence I conclude this last will be much more potent than all the theological propagandism o the reethin'ers to destroy to their last %estige the religious belie s and dissolute habits o the people, belie s and habits much more intimately connected than is generally supposed. In substituting or the at once illusory and brutal en-oyments o bodily and spiritual licentiousness the en-oyments, as re ined as they are real, o humanity de%eloped in

each and all, the social re%olution alone will ha%e the power to close at the same time all the dram(shops and all the churches. Till then the people. Ta'en as a whole, will belie%e! and, i they ha%e no reason to belie%e, they will ha%e at least a right. There is a class o people who, i they do not belie%e, must at least ma'e a semblance o belie%ing. This class comprising all the tormentors, all the oppressors, and all the e#ploiters o humanity! priests, monarchs, statesmen, soldiers, public and pri%ate inanciers, o icials o all sorts, policemen, gendarmes, -ailers and e#ecutioners, monopolists, capitalists, ta#(leeches, contractors and landlords, lawyers, economists, politicians o all shades, down to the smallest %endor o sweetmeats, all will repeat in unison those words o Voltaire& 9I /od did not e#ist, it would be necessary to in%ent him.9 5or, you understand, 9the people must ha%e a religion.9 That is the sa ety(%al%e. There e#ists, inally, a somewhat numerous class o honest but timid souls who, too intelligent to ta'e the Christian dogmas seriously, re-ect them in detail, but ha%e neither the courage nor the strength nor the necessary resolution to summarily renounce them altogether. They abandon to your criticism all the special absurdities o religion, they turn up their noses at all the miracles, but they cling desperately to the principal absurdity! the source o all the others, to the miracle that e#plains and -usti ies all the other miracles, the e#istence o /od. Their /od is not the %igorous and power ul being, the brutally positi%e /od o theology. It is a nebulous, diaphanous, illusory being that %anishes into nothing at the irst attempt to grasp it! it is a mirage, an ignis fatugs that neither warms nor illuminates. $nd yet they hold ast to it, and belie%e that, were it to disappear, all would disappear with it. They are uncertain, sic'ly souls, who ha%e lost their rec'oning in the present ci%ilisation, belonging to neither the present nor the uture, pale phantoms eternally suspended between hea%en and earth, and occupying e#actly the same position between the politics o the bourgeois and the 0ocialism o the proletariat. They ha%e neither the power nor the wish nor the determination to ollow out their thought, and they waste their time and pains in constantly endea%ouring to reconcile the irreconcilable. In public li e these are 'nown as bourgeois 0ocialists. With them, or against them, discussion is out o the question. They are too puny. )ut there are a ew illustrious men o whom no one will dare to spea' without respect, and whose %igorous health, strength o mind, and good intention no one will dream o calling in question. I need only cite the names o ;a**ini, ;ichelet, Auinet, ,ohn 0tuart ;ill.= /enerous and strong souls, great hearts, great minds, great writers, and the irst the heroic and re%olutionary regenerator o a great nation, they are all apostles o idealism and bitter despisers and ad%ersaries o materialism, and consequently o 0ocialism also, in philosophy as well as in politics. $gainst them, then, we must discuss this question. 5irst, let it be remar'ed that not one o the illustrious men I ha%e -ust named nor any other idealistic thin'er o any consequence in our day has gi%en any attention to the

logical side o this question properly spea'ing. 4ot one has tried to settle philosophically the possibility o the di%ine salto mortale rom the pure and eternal regions o spirit into the mire o the material world. .a%e they eared to approach this irreconcilable contradiction and despaired o sol%ing it a ter the ailures o the greatest geniuses o history, or ha%e they loo'ed upon it as already su iciently well settled? That is their secret. The act is that they ha%e neglected the theoretical demonstration o the e#istence o a /od, and ha%e de%eloped only its practical moti%es and consequences. They ha%e treated it as a act uni%ersally accepted, and, as such, no longer susceptible o any doubt whate%er, or sole proo thereo limiting themsel%es to the establishment o the antiquity and this %ery uni%ersality o the belie in /od. This imposing unanimity, in the eyes o many illustrious men and writers to quote only the most amous o them who eloquently e#pressed it, ,oseph de ;aistre and the great Italian patriot, /iuseppe ;a**ini (( is o more %alue than all the demonstrations o science! and i the reasoning o a small number o logical and e%en %ery power ul, but isolated, thin'ers is against it, so much the worse, they say, or these thin'ers and their logic, or uni%ersal consent, the general and primiti%e adoption o an idea, has always been considered the most triumphant testimony to its truth. The I sentiment o the whole world, a con%iction that is ound 8 and maintained always and e%erywhere, cannot be mista'en! it must ha%e its root in a necessity absolutely inherent in the %ery nature o man. $nd since it has been established that all peoples, past and present, ha%e belie%ed and still belie%e in the e#istence o /od, it is clear that those who ha%e the mis ortune to doubt it, whate%er the logic that led them to this doubt, are abnormal e#ceptions, monsters. Thus, then, the antiquity and universality o a belie should be regarded, contrary to all science and all logic, as su icient and unimpeachable proo o its truth. Why? Until the days o Copernicus and /alileo e%erybody belie%ed that the sun re%ol%ed about the earth. Was not e%erybody mista'en? What is more ancient and more uni%ersal than sla%ery? Cannibalism perhaps. 5rom the origin o historic society down to the present day there has been always and e%erywhere e#ploitation o the compulsory labour o the masses((sla%es, ser s, or wage wor'ers (( by some dominant minority! oppression o the people by the Church and by the 0tate. ;ust it be concluded that this e#ploitation and this oppression are necessities absolutely inherent in the %ery e#istence o human society? These are e#amples which show that the argument o the champions o /od pro%es nothing. 4othing, in act, is as uni%ersal or as ancient as the iniquitous and absurd! truth and -ustice, on the contrary, are the least uni%ersal, the youngest eatures in the de%elopment o human society. In this act, too, lies the e#planation o a constant historical phenomenon (( namely, the persecution o which those who irst proclaim the truth ha%e been and continue to be the ob-ects at the hands o the o icial, pri%ileged, and interested representati%es o 9uni%ersal9 and 9ancient9 belie s, and o ten also at the hands o the same masses who, a ter ha%ing tortured them, always end by adopting their ideas and rendering them %ictorious.

To us materialists and 2e%olutionary 0ocialists, there is nothing astonishing or terri ying in this historical phenomenon. 0trong in our conscience, in our lo%e o truth at all ha*ards, in that passion or logic which o itsel alone constitutes a great power and outside o which there is no thought! strong in our passion or -ustice and in our unsha'eable aith in the triumph o humanity o%er all theoretical and practical bestialities! strong, inally, in the mutual con idence and support gi%en each other by the ew who share our con%ictions (( we resign oursel%es to all the consequences o this historical phenomenon, in which we see the mani estation o a social law as natural, as necessary, and as in%ariable as all the other laws which go%ern the world. This law is a logical, ine%itable consequence o the animal origin o human society! or in ace o all the scienti ic, physiological, psychological, and historical proo s accumulated at the present day, as well as in ace o the e#ploits o the /ermans conquering 5rance, which now urnish so stri'ing a demonstration thereo , it is no longer possible to really doubt this origin. )ut rom the moment that this animal origin o man is accepted, all is e#plained. .istory then appears to us as the re%olutionary negation, now slow, apathetic, sluggish, now passionate and power ul, o the past. It consists precisely in the progressi%e negation o the primiti%e animality o man by the de%elopment o his humanity. ;an, a wild beast, cousin o the gorilla, has emerged rom the pro ound dar'ness o animal instinct into the light o the mind, which e#plains in a wholly natural way all his past mista'es and partially consoles us or his present errors. .e has gone out rom animal sla%ery, and passing through di%ine sla%ery, a temporary condition between his animality and his humanity, he is now marching on to the conquest and realisation o human liberty. Whence it results that the antiquity o a belie , o an idea, ar rom pro%ing anything in its a%our, ought, on the contrary, to lead us to suspect it. 5or behind us is our animality and be ore us our humanity! human light, the only thing that can warm and enlighten us, the only thing that can emancipate us, gi%e us dignity, reedom, and happiness, and realise raternity among us, is ne%er at the beginning, but, relati%ely to the epoch in which we li%e, always at the end o history. :et us, then, ne%er loo' bac', let us loo' e%er orward! or orward is our sunlight, orward our sal%ation. I it is -usti iable, and e%en use ul and necessary, to turn bac' to study our past, it is only in order to establish what we ha%e been and what we must no longer be, what we ha%e belie%ed and thought and what we must no longer belie%e or thin', what we ha%e done and what we must do ne%ermore. 0o much or antiquity. $s or the universality o an error, it pro%es but one thing (( the similarity, i not the per ect identity, o human nature in all ages and under all s'ies. $nd, since it is established that all peoples, at all periods o their li e, ha%e belie%ed and still belie%e in /od, we must simply conclude that the di%ine idea, an outcome o oursel%es, is an error historically necessary in the de%elopment o humanity, and as' why and how it was produced in history and why an immense ma-ority o the human race still accept it as a truth. Until we shall account to oursel%es or the manner in which the idea o a supernatural or di%ine world was de%eloped and had to be de%eloped in the historical e%olution o the human conscience, all our scienti ic con%iction o its absurdity will be in %ain!

until then we shall ne%er succeed in destroying it in the opinion o the ma-ority, because we shall ne%er be able to attac' it in the %ery depths o the hut man being where it had birth. Condemned to a ruitless struggle, without issue and without end, we should or e%er ha%e to content oursel%es with ighting it solely on the sur ace, in its innumerable mani estations, whose absurdity will be scarcely beaten down by the blows o common sense be ore it will reappear in a new orm no less nonsensical. While the root o all the absurdities that torment the world, belie in /od, remains intact, it will ne%er ail to bring orth new o spring. Thus, at the present time, in certain sections o the highest society, 0piritualism tends to establish itsel upon the ruins o Christianity. It is not only in the interest o the masses, it is in that o the health o our own minds, that we should stri%e to understand the historic genesis, the succession o causes which de%eloped and produced the idea o /od in the consciousness o men. In %ain shall we call and belie%e oursel%es $theists, until we comprehend these causes, or, until then, we shall always su er oursel%es to be more or less go%erned by the clamours o this uni%ersal conscience whose secret we ha%e not disco%ered! and, considering the natural wea'ness o e%en the strongest indi%idual against the all( power ul in luence o the social surroundings that trammel him, we are always in danger o relapsing sooner or later, in one way or another, into the abyss o religious absurdity. +#amples o these shame ul con%ersions are requent in society to(day.

II
I ha%e stated the chie practical reason o the power still e#ercised to(day o%er the masses by religious belie s. These mystical tendencies do not signi y in man so much an aberration o mind as a deep discontent at .eart. They are the instincti%e and passionate protest o the human being against the narrowness, the platitudes, the sorrows, and the shame o a wretched e#istence. 5or this malady, I ha%e already said, there is but one remedy(0ocial 2e%olution. In the meantime I ha%e endea%ored to show the causes responsible or the birth and historical de%elopment o religious hallucinations in the human conscience. .ere it is my purpose to treat this question o the e#istence o a /od, or o the di%ine origin o the world and o man, solely rom the standpoint o its moral and social utility, and I shall say only a ew words, to better e#plain my thought, regarding the theoretical grounds o this belie . $ll religions, with their gods, their demigods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the credulous ancy o men who had not attained the ull de%elopment and ull possession o their aculties. Consequently, the religious hea%en is nothing but a mirage in which man, e#alted by ignorance and aith, disco%ers his

own image, but enlarged and re%ersed(that is, divini"ed. The history o religion, o the birth, grandeur, and decline o the gods who ha%e succeeded one another in human belie , is nothing, there ore, but the de%elopment o the collecti%e intelligence and conscience o man'ind. $s ast as they disco%ered, in the course o their historically progressi%e ad%ance, either in themsel%es or in e#ternal nature, a power, a quality, or e%en any great de ect whate%er, they attributed them to their gods, a ter ha%ing e#aggerated and enlarged them beyond measure, a ter the manner o children, by an act o their religious ancy. Than's to this modesty and pious generosity o belie%ing and credulous men, hea%en has grown rich with the spoils o the earth, and, by a necessary consequence, the richer hea%en became, the more wretched became humanity and the earth. /od once installed, he was naturally proclaimed the cause, reason, arbiter and absolute disposer o all things& the world thence orth was nothing, /od was all! and man, his real creator, a ter ha%ing un'nowingly e#tracted him rom the %oid, bowed down be ore him, worshipped him, and a%owed himsel his creature and his sla%e. Christianity is precisely the religion par e#cellence, because it e#hibits and mani ests, to the ullest e#tent, the %ery nature and essence o e%ery religious system, which is the impoverishment, enslavement, and annihilation of humanity for the benefit of divinity. /od being e%erything, the real world and man are nothing. /od being truth, -ustice, goodness, beauty, power, and li e, man is alsehood, iniquity, e%il, ugliness, impotence, and death. /od being master, man is the sla%e. Incapable o inding -ustice, truth, and eternal li e by his own e ort, he can attain them only through a di%ine re%elation. )ut whoe%er says re%elation says re%ealers, messiahs, prophets, priests, and legislators inspired by /od himsel ! and these, once recogni*ed as the representati%es o di%inity on earth, as the holy instructors o humanity, chosen by /od himsel to direct it in the path o sal%ation, necessarily e#ercise absolute power. $ll men owe them passi%e and unlimited obedience! or against the di%ine reason there is no human reason, and against the -ustice o /od no terrestrial -ustice holds. 0la%es o /od, men must also be sla%es o Church and 0tate, in so far as the $tate is consecrated by the Church. This truth Christianity, better than all other religions that e#ist or ha%e e#isted, understood, not e#cepting e%en the old 1riental religions, which included only distinct and pri%ileged nations, while Christianity aspires to embrace entire humanity! and this truth 2oman Catholicism, alone among all the Christian sects, has proclaimed and reali*ed with rigorous logic. That is why Christianity is the absolute religion, the inal religion! why the $postolic and 2oman Church is the only consistent, legitimate, and di%ine church. With all due respect, then, to the metaphysicians and religious idealists, philosophers, politicians, or poets& %he idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and &ustice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and practice. Unless, then, we desire the ensla%ement and degradation o man'ind, as the ,esuits desire it, as the mmiers, pietists, or "rotestant ;ethodists desire it, we may not, must

not ma'e the slightest concession either to the /od o theology or to the /od o metaphysics. .e who, in this mystical alphabet, begins with $ will ine%itably end with B! he who desires to worship /od must harbor no childish illusions about the matter, but bra%ely renounce his liberty and humanity. I /od is, man is a sla%e! now, man can and must be ree! then, /od does not e#ist. I de y anyone whomsoe%er to a%oid this circle! now, there ore, let all choose. Is it necessary to point out to what e#tent and in what manner religions debase and corrupt the people? They destroy their reason, the principal instrument o human emancipation, and reduce them to imbecility, the essential condition o their sla%ery. They dishonor human labor, and ma'e it a sign and source o ser%itude. They 'ill the idea and sentiment o human -ustice, e%er tipping the balance to the side o triumphant 'na%es, pri%ileged ob-ects o di%ine indulgence. They 'ill human pride and dignity, protecting only the cringing and humble. They sti le in the heart o nations e%ery eeling o human raternity, illing it with di%ine cruelty instead. $ll religions are cruel, all ounded on blood! or all rest principally on the idea o sacra ice(that is, on the perpetual immolation o humanity to the insatiable %engeance o di%inity. In this bloody mystery man is always the %ictim, and the priest(a man also, but a man pri%ileged by grace( is the di%ine e#ecutioner. That e#plains why the priests o all religions, the best, the most humane, the gentlest, almost always ha%e at the bottom o their hearts(and, i not in their hearts, in their imaginations, in their minds 6and we 'now the ear ul in luence o either on the hearts o men7(something cruel and sanguinary. 4one 'now all this better than our illustrious contemporary idealists. They are learned men, who 'now history by heart! and, as they are at the same time li%ing men, great souls penetrated with a sincere and pro ound lo%e or the wel are o humanity, they ha%e cursed and branded all these misdeeds, all these crimes o religion with an eloquence unparalleled. They re-ect with indignation all solidarity with the /od o positi%e religions and with his representati%es, past, present, and on earth. The /od whom they adore, or whom they thin' they adore, is distinguished rom the real gods o history precisely in this(that he is not at all a positi%e god, de ined in any way whate%er, theologically or e%en metaphysically. .e is neither the supreme being o 2obespierre and ,. ,. 2ousseau, nor the pantheistic god o 0pino*a, nor e%en the at once immanent, transcendental, and %ery equi%ocal god o .egel. They ta'e good care not to gi%e him any positi%e de inition whate%er, eeling %ery strongly that any de inition would sub-ect him to the dissol%ing power o criticism. They will not say whether be is a personal or impersonal god, whether he created or did not create the world! they will not e%en spea' o his di%ine pro%idence. $ll that might compromise him. They content themsel%es with saying 9/od9 and nothing more. )ut, then, what is their /od? 4ot e%en an idea! it is an aspiration. It is the generic name o all that seems grand, good, beauti ul, noble, human to them. )ut why, then, do they not say, 9;an.9 $h3 because @ing William o "russia and

4apoleon III, and all their compeers are li'ewise men& which bothers them %ery much. 2eal humanity presents a mi#ture o all I that is most sublime and beauti ul with all that is %ilest and most monstrous in the world. .ow do they get o%er this? Why, they call one divine and the other bestial, representing di%inity and animality as two poles, between which they place humanity. They either will not or cannot understand that these three terms are really but one, and that to separate them is to destroy them. They are not strong on logic, and one might say that they despise it. That is what distinguishes them rom the pantheistical and deistical metaphysicians, and gi%es their ideas the character o a practical idealism, drawing its inspiration much less rom the se%ere de%elopment o a thought than rom the e#periences, I might almost say the emotions, historical and collecti%e as well as indi%idual, o li e. This gi%es their propaganda an appearance o wealth and %ital power, but an appearance only! or li e itsel becomes sterile when paraly*ed by a logical contradiction. This contradiction lies here& they wish /od, and they wish humanity. They persist in connecting two terms which, once separated, can come together again only to destroy each other. They say in a single breath& 9/od and the liberty o man,9 9/od and the dignity, -ustice, equality, raternity, prosperity o men9(regardless o the atal logic by %irtue o which, i /od e#ists, all these things are condemned to non(e#istence. 5or, i /od is, he is necessarily the eternal, supreme, absolute master, and, i such a master e#ists, man is a sla%e! now, i he is a sla%e, neither -ustice, nor equality, nor raternity, nor prosperity are possible or him. In %ain, lying in the ace o good sense and all the teachings o history, do they represent their /od as animated by the tenderest lo%e o human liberty& a master, whoe%er he may be and howe%er liberal he may desire to show himsel , remains none the less always a master. .is e#istence necessarily implies the sla%ery o all that is beneath him. There ore, i /od e#isted, only in one way could he ser%e human liberty(by ceasing to e#ist. $ -ealous lo%er o human liberty, and deeming it the absolute condition o all that we admire and respect in humanity, I re%erse the phrase o Voltaire, and say that, if God really e#isted, it would be necessary to abolish him. The se%ere logic that dictates these words is ar too e%ident to require a de%elopment o this argument. $nd it seems to me impossible that the illustrious men, whose names so celebrated and so -ustly respected I ha%e cited, should not ha%e been struc' by it themsel%es, and should not ha%e percei%ed the contradiction in which they in%ol%e themsel%es in spea'ing o /od and human liberty at once. To ha%e disregarded it, they must ha%e considered this inconsistency or logical license practically necessary to humanity8s well(being. "erhaps, too, while spea'ing o liberty as something %ery respectable and %ery dear in their eyes, they gi%e the term a meaning quite di erent rom the conception entertained by us, materialists and 2e%olutionary 0ocialists. Indeed, they ne%er spea' o it without immediately adding another word, authority(a word and a thing which we detest with all our heart. What is authority? Is it the ine%itable power o the natural laws which mani est

themsel%es in the necessary concatenation and succession o phenomena in the physical and social worlds? Indeed, against these laws re%olt is not only orbidden(it is e%en impossible. We may misunderstand them or not 'now them at all, but we cannot disobey them! because they constitute the basis and undamental conditions o our e#istence! they en%elop us, penetrate us, regulate all our mo%ements, thoughts, and acts! e%en when we belie%e that we disobey them, we only show their omnipotence. Yes, we are absolutely the sla%es o these laws. )ut in such sla%ery there is no humiliation, or, rather, it is not sla%ery at all. 5or sla%ery supposes an e#ternal master, a legislator outside o him whom he commands, while these laws are not outside o us! they are inherent in us! they constitute our being, our whole being, physically( intellectually, and morally& we li%e, we breathe, we act, we thin', we wish only through these laws. Without them we are nothing, we are not. Whence, then, could we deri%e the power and the wish to rebel against them? In his relation to natural laws but one liberty is possible to man(that o recogni*ing and applying them on an e%er(e#tending scale in con ormity with the ob-ect o collecti%e and indi%idual emancipation or humani*ation which he pursues. These laws, once recogni*ed, e#ercise an authority which is ne%er disputed by the mass o men. 1ne must, or instance, be at bottom either a ool or a theologian or at least a metaphysician, -urist, or bourgeois economist to rebel against the law by which twice two ma'e our. 1ne must ha%e aith to imagine that ire will not burn nor water drown, e#cept, indeed, recourse be had to some subter uge ounded in its turn on some other natural law. )ut these re%olts, or, rather, these attempts at or oolish ancies o an impossible re%olt, are decidedly, the e#ception! or, in general, it may be said that the mass o men, in their daily li%es, ac'nowledge the go%ernment o common sense(that is, o the sum o the natural laws generally recogni*ed(in an almost absolute ashion. The great mis ortune is that a large number o natural laws, already established as such by science, remain un'nown to the masses, than's to the watch ulness o these tutelary go%ernments that e#ist, as we 'now, only or the good o the people. There is another di iculty(namely, that the ma-or portion o the natural laws connected with the de%elopment o human society, which are quite as necessary, in%ariable, atal, as the laws that go%ern the physical world, ha%e not been duly established and recogni*ed by science itsel . 1nce they shall ha%e been recogni*ed by science, and then rom science, by means o an e#tensi%e system o popular education and instruction, shall ha%e passed into the consciousness o all, the question o liberty will be entirely sol%ed. The most stubborn authorities must admit that then there will be no need either o political organi*ation or direction or legislation, three things which, whether they emanate rom the will o the so%ereign or rom the %ote o a parliament elected by uni%ersal su rage, and e%en should they con orm to the system o natural laws(which has ne%er been the case and ne%er will be the case(are always equally atal and hostile to the liberty o the masses rom the %ery act that they impose upon them a system o

e#ternal and there ore despotic laws. The liberty o man consists solely in this& that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recogni*ed them as such, and not because they ha%e been e#ternally imposed upon him by any e#trinsic will whate%er, di%ine or human, collecti%e or indi%idual. 0uppose a learned academy, composed o the most illustrious representati%es o science! suppose this academy charged with legislation or and the organi*ation o society, and that, inspired only by the purest lo%e o truth, it rames none but laws in absolute harmony with the latest disco%eries o science. Well, I maintain, or my part, that such legislation and such organi*ation would be a monstrosity, and that or two reasons& irst, that human science is always and necessarily imper ect, and that, comparing what it has disco%ered with what remains to be disco%ered, we may say that it is still in its cradle. 0o that were we to try to orce the practical li e o men, collecti%e as well as indi%idual, into strict and e#clusi%e con ormity with the latest data o science, we should condemn society as well as indi%iduals to su er martyrdom on a bed o "rocrustes, which would soon end by dislocating and sti ling them, li e e%er remaining an in initely greater thing than science. The second reason is this& a society which should obey legislation emanating rom a scienti ic academy, not because it understood itsel the rational character o this legislation 6in which case the e#istence o the academy would become useless7, but because this legislation, emanating rom the academy, was imposed in the name o a science which it %enerated without comprehending (such a society would be a society, not o men, but o brutes. It would be a second edition o those missions in "araguay which submitted so long to the go%ernment o the ,esuits. It would surely and rapidly descend to the lowest stage o idiocy. )ut there is still a third reason which would render such a go%ernment impossible( namely that a scienti ic academy in%ested with a so%ereignty, so to spea', absolute, e%en i it were composed o the most illustrious men, would in allibly and soon end in its own moral and intellectual corruption. +%en to(day, with the ew pri%ileges allowed them, such is the history o all academies. The greatest scienti ic genius, rom the moment that he becomes an academician, an o icially licensed savant, ine%itably lapses into sluggishness. .e loses his spontaneity, his re%olutionary hardihood, and that troublesome and sa%age energy characteristic o the grandest geniuses, e%er called to destroy old tottering worlds and lay the oundations o new. .e undoubtedly gains in politeness, in utilitarian and practical wisdom, what he loses in power o thought. In a word, he becomes corrupted. It is the characteristic o pri%ilege and o e%ery pri%ileged position to 'ill the mind and heart o men. The pri%ileged man, whether politically or economically, is a man depra%ed in mind and heart. That is a social law which admits o no e#ception, and is as applicable to entire nations as to classes, corporations, and indi%iduals. It is the law o equality, the supreme condition o liberty and humanity. The principal ob-ect o this treatise is precisely to demonstrate this truth in all the mani estations o human li e. $ scienti ic body to which had been con ided the go%ernment o society would soon

end by de%oting itsel no longer to science at all, but to quite another a air! and that a air, as in the case o all established powers, would be its own eternal perpetuation by rendering the society con ided to its care e%er more stupid and consequently more in need o its go%ernment and direction. )ut that which is true o scienti ic academies is also true o all constituent and legislati%e assemblies, e%en those chosen by uni%ersal su rage. In the latter case they may renew their composition, it is true, but this does not pre%ent the ormation in a ew years8 time o a body o politicians, pri%ileged in act though not in law, who, de%oting themsel%es e#clusi%ely to the direction o the public a airs o a country, inally orm a sort o political aristocracy or oligarchy. Witness the United 0tates o $merica and 0wit*erland. Consequently, no e#ternal legislation and no authority(one, or that matter, being inseparable rom the other, and both tending to the ser%itude o society and the degradation o the legislators themsel%es. ?oes it ollow that I re-ect all authority? 5ar rom me such a thought. In the matter o boots, I re er to the authority o the bootma'er! concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that o the architect or engineer. 5or such or such special 'nowledge I apply to such or such a savant. )ut I allow neither the bootma'er nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them reely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their 'nowledge, reser%ing always my incontestable right o criticism censure. I do not content mysel with consulting authority in any special branch! I consult se%eral! I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. )ut I recogni*e no in allible authority, e%en in special questions! consequently, whate%er respect I may ha%e or the honesty and the sincerity o such or such an indi%idual, I ha%e no absolute aith in any person. 0uch a aith would be atal to my reason, to my liberty, and e%en to the success o my underta'ings! it would immediately trans orm me into a stupid sla%e, an instrument o the will and interests o others. I I bow be ore the authority o the specialists and a%ow my readiness to ollow, to a certain e#tent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and e%en their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one, neither by men nor by /od. 1therwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the de%il ta'e their counsels, their directions, and their ser%ices, certain that they would ma'e me pay, by the loss o my liberty and sel (respect, or such scraps o truth, wrapped in a multitude o lies, as they might gi%e me. I bow be ore the authority o special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious o my inability to grasp, in all its details and positi%e de%elopments, any %ery large portion o human 'nowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension o the whole. Thence results, or science as well as or industry, the necessity o the di%ision and association o labor. I recei%e and I gi%e(such is human li e. +ach directs and is directed in his turn. There ore there is no i#ed and constant authority, but a continual e#change o mutual, temporary, and, abo%e all, %oluntary authority and subordination.

This same reason orbids me, then, to recogni*e a i#ed, constant, and uni%ersal authority, because there is no uni%ersal man, no man capable o grasping in that wealth o detail, without which the application o science to li e is impossible, all the sciences, all the branches o social li e. $nd i such uni%ersality could e%er be reali*ed in a single man, and i be wished to ta'e ad%antage thereo to impose his authority upon us, it would be necessary to dri%e this man out o society, because his authority would ine%itably reduce all the others to sla%ery and imbecility. I do not thin' that society ought to maltreat men o genius as it has done hitherto! but neither do I thin' it should indulge them too ar, still less accord them any pri%ileges or e#clusi%e rights whatsoe%er! and that or three reasons& irst, because it would o ten mista'e a charlatan or a man o genius! second, because, through such a system o pri%ileges, it might trans orm into a charlatan e%en a real man o genius, demorali*e him, and degrade him! and, inally, because it would establish a master o%er itsel . To sum up. We recogni*e, then, the absolute authority o science, because the sole ob-ect o science is the mental reproduction, as well(considered and systematic as possible, o the natural laws inherent in the material, intellectual, and moral li e o both the physical and the social worlds, these two worlds constituting, in act, but one and the same natural world. 1utside o this only legitimate authority, legitimate because rational and in harmony with human liberty, we declare all other authorities alse, arbitrary and atal. We recogni*e the absolute authority o science, but we re-ect the in allibility and uni%ersality o the savant. In our church(i I may be permitted to use or a moment an e#pression which I so detest& Church and 0tate are my two b'tes noires(in our church, as in the "rotestant church, we ha%e a chie , an in%isible Christ, science! and, li'e the "rotestants, more logical e%en than the "rotestants, we will su er neither pope, nor council, nor concla%es o in allible cardinals, nor bishops, nor e%en priests. 1ur Christ di ers rom the "rotestant and Christian Christ in this(that the latter is a personal being, ours impersonal! the Christian Christ, already completed in an eternal past, presents himsel as a per ect being, while the completion and per ection o our Christ, science, are e%er in the uture& which is equi%alent to saying that they will ne%er be reali*ed. There ore, in recogni*ing absolute science as the only absolute authority, we in no way compromise our liberty. I mean by the words 9absolute science,9 the truly uni%ersal science which would reproduce ideally, to its ullest e#tent and in all its in inite detail, the uni%erse, the system or co(ordination o all the natural laws mani ested by the incessant de%elopment o the world. It is e%ident that such a science, the sublime ob-ect o all the e orts o the human mind, will ne%er be ully and absolutely reali*ed. 1ur Christ, then, will remain eternally un inished, which must considerably ta'e down the pride o his licensed representati%es among us. $gainst that /od the 0on in whose name they assume to impose upon us their insolent and pedantic authority, we appeal to /od the 5ather, who is the real world, real li e, o which he 6the 0on7 is only a too imper ect e#pression, whilst we real beings, li%ing, wor'ing, struggling, lo%ing, aspiring, en-oying, and su ering, are its immediate representati%es.

)ut, while re-ecting the absolute, uni%ersal, and in allible authority o men o science, we willingly bow be ore the respectable, although relati%e, quite temporary, and %ery restricted authority o the representati%es o special sciences, as'ing nothing better than to consult them by turns, and %ery grate ul or such precious in ormation as they may e#tend to us, on condition o their willingness to recei%e rom us on occasions when, and concerning matters about which, we are more learned than they. In general, we as' nothing better than to see men endowed with great 'nowledge, great e#perience, great minds, and, abo%e all, great hearts, e#ercise o%er us a natural and legitimate in luence, reely accepted, and ne%er imposed in the name o any o icial authority whatsoe%er, celestial or terrestrial. We accept all natural authorities and all in luences o act, but none o right! or e%ery authority or e%ery in luence o right, o icially imposed as such, becoming directly an oppression and a alsehood, would ine%itably impose upon us, as I belie%e I ha%e su iciently shown, sla%ery and absurdity. In a word, we re-ect all legislation, all authority, and all pri%ileged, licensed, o icial, and legal in luence, e%en though arising rom uni%ersal su rage, con%inced that it can turn only to the ad%antage o a dominant minority o e#ploiters against the interests o the immense ma-ority in sub-ection to them. This is the sense in which we are really $narchists. The modern idealists understand authority in quite a di erent way. $lthough ree rom the traditional superstitions o all the e#isting positi%e religions, they ne%ertheless attach to this idea o authority a di%ine, an absolute meaning. This authority is not that o a truth miraculously re%ealed, nor that o a truth rigorously and scienti ically demonstrated. They base it to a slight e#tent upon quasi(philosophical reasoning, and to a large e#tent also on sentiment, ideally, abstractly poetical. Their religion is, as it were, a last attempt to di%inise all that constitutes humanity in men. This is -ust the opposite o the wor' that we are doing. 1n behal o human liberty, dignity and prosperity, we belie%e it our duty to reco%er rom hea%en the goods which it has stolen and return them to earth. They, on the contrary, endea%ouring to commit a inal religiously heroic larceny, would restore to hea%en, that di%ine robber, inally unmas'ed, the grandest, inest and noblest o humanity8s possessions. It is now the reethin'er8s turn to pillage hea%en by their audacious piety and scienti ic analysis. The idealists undoubtedly belie%e that human ideas and deeds, in order to e#ercise greater authority among men, must be in%ested with a di%ine sanction. .ow is this sanction mani ested? 4ot by a miracle, as in the positi%e religions, but by the %ery grandeur o sanctity o the ideas and deeds& whate%er is grand, whate%er is beauti ul, whate%er is noble, whate%er is -ust, is considered di%ine. In this new religious cult e%ery man inspired by these ideas, by these deeds, becomes a priest, directly consecrated by /od himsel . $nd the proo ? .e needs none beyond the %ery grandeur o the ideas which he e#presses and the deeds which he per orms. These are so holy that they can ha%e been inspired only by /od. 0uch, in so ew words, is their whole philosophy& a philosophy o sentiments, not o real thoughts, a sort o metaphysical pietism. This seems harmless, but it is not so at

all, and the %ery precise, %ery narrow and %ery barren doctrine hidden under the intangible %agueness o these poetic orms leads to the same disastrous results that all the positi%e religions lead to((namely, the most complete negation o human liberty and dignity. To proclaim as di%ine all that is grand, -ust, noble, and beauti ul in humanity is to tacitly admit that humanity o itsel would ha%e been unable to produce it (( that is, that, abandoned to itsel , its own nature is miserable, iniquitous, base, and ugly. Thus we come bac' to the essence o all religion((in other words, to the disparagement o humanity or the greater glory o di%inity. $nd rom the moment that the natural in eriority o man and his undamental incapacity to rise by his own e ort, unaided by any di%ine inspiration, to the comprehension o -ust and true ideas, are admitted, it becomes necessary to admit also all the theological, political, and social consequences o the positi%e religions. 5rom the moment that /od, the per ect and supreme being, is posited ace to ace with humanity, di%ine mediators, the elect, the inspired o /od spring rom the earth to enlighten, direct, and go%ern in his name the human race. ;ay we not suppose that all men are equally inspired by /od? Then, surely, there is no urther use or mediators. )ut this supposition is impossible, because it is too clearly contradicted by the acts. It would compel us to attribute to di%ine inspiration all the absurdities and errors which appear, and all the horrors, ollies, base deeds, and cowardly actions which are committed, in the world. )ut perhaps, then, only a ew men are di%inely inspired, the great men o history, the virtuous geniuses, as the illustrious Italian citi*en and prophet, /iuseppe ;a**ini, called them. Immediately inspired by /od himsel and supported upon uni%ersal consent e#pressed by popular su rage (( (io e )opolo (( such as these should be called to the go%ernment o human societies.> )ut here we are again allen bac' under the yo'e o Church and 0tate. It is true that in this new organi*ation, indebted or its e#istence, li'e all the old political organisations, to the grace of God, but supported this time((at least so ar as orm is concerned, as a necessary concession to the spirit o modern times, and -ust as in the preambles o the imperial decrees o 4apoleon III. (( on the 6pretended7 will of the people, the Church will no longer call itsel Church! it will call itsel 0chool. What matters it? 1n the benches o this 0chool will be seated not children only! there will be ound the eternal minor, the pupil con essedly ore%er incompetent to pass his e#aminations, rise to the 'nowledge o his teachers, and dispense with their discipline((the people.C The 0tate will no longer call itsel ;onarchy! it will call itsel 2epublic& but it will be none the less the 0tate (( that is, a tutelage o icially and regularly established by a minority o competent men, men of virtuous genius or talent, who will watch and guide the conduct o this great, incorrigible, and terrible child, the people. The pro essors o the 0chool and the unctionaries o the 0tate will call themsel%es republicans! but they will be none the less tutors, shepherds, and the people will remain what they ha%e been hitherto rom all eternity, a loc'. )eware o shearers, or where there is a loc' there necessarily must be shepherds also to shear and de%our it.

The people, in this system, will be the perpetual scholar and pupil. In spite o its so%ereignty, wholly ictitious, it will continue to ser%e as the instrument o thoughts, wills, and consequently interests not its own. )etween this situation and what we call liberty, the only real liberty, there is an abyss. It will be the old oppression and old sla%ery under new orms! and where there is sla%ery there is misery, brutishness, real social materialism, among the pri%ileged classes as well as among the masses. *n defying human things the idealists always end in the triumph of a brutal materialism. $nd this or a %ery simple reason& the di%ine e%aporates and rises to its own country, hea%en, while the brutal alone remains actually on earth. Yes, the necessary consequence o theoretical idealism is practically the most brutal materialism! not, undoubtedly, among those who sincerely preach it((the usual result as ar as they are concerned being that they are constrained to see all their e orts struc' with sterility((but among those who try to realise their precepts in li e, and in all society so ar as it allows itsel to be dominated by idealistic doctrines. To demonstrate this general act, which may appear strange at irst, but which e#plains itsel naturally enough upon urther re lection, historical proo s are not lac'ing. Compare the last two ci%ilisations o the ancient world (( the /ree' and the 2oman. Which is the most materialistic, the most natural, in its point o departure, and the most humanly ideal in its results? Undoubtedly the /ree' ci%ilisation. Which on the contrary, is the most abstractly ideal in its point o departure((sacri icing the material liberty o the man to the ideal liberty o the citi*en, represented by the abstraction o -udicial law, and the natural de%elopment o human society to the abstraction o the 0tate (( and which became ne%ertheless the most brutal in its consequences? The 2oman ci%ilisation, certainly. It is true that the /ree' ci%ilisation, li'e all the ancient ci%ilisations, including that o 2ome, was e#clusi%ely national and based on sla%ery. )ut, in spite o these two immense de ects, the ormer none the less concei%ed and realised the idea o humanity! it ennobled and really idealised the li e o men! it trans ormed human herds into ree associations o ree men! it created through liberty the sciences, the arts, a poetry, an immortal philosophy, and the primary concepts o human respect. With political and social liberty, it created ree thought. $t the close o the ;iddle $ges, during the period o the 2enaissance, the act that some /ree' emigrants brought a ew o those immortal boo's into Italy su iced to resuscitate li e, liberty, thought, humanity, buried in the dar' dungeon o Catholicism. .uman emancipation, that is the name o the /ree' ci%ilisation. $nd the name o the 2oman ci%ilisation? Conquest, with all its brutal consequences. $nd its last word? The omnipotence o the Caesars. Which means the degradation and ensla%ement o nations and o men. To(day e%en, what is it that 'ills, what is it that crushes brutally, materially, in all +uropean countries, liberty and humanity? It is the triumph o the Caesarian or 2oman principle. Compare now two modern ci%ilisations (( the Italian and the /erman. The irst undoubtedly represents, in its general character, materialism! the second, on the

contrary, represents idealism in its most abstract, most pure, and most transcendental orm. :et us see what are the practical ruits o the one and the other. Italy has already rendered immense ser%ices to the cause o human emancipation. 0he was the irst to resuscitate and widely apply the principle o liberty in +urope, and to restore to humanity its titles to nobility& industry, commerce, poetry, the arts, the positi%e sciences, and ree thought. Crushed since by three centuries o imperial and papal despotism, and dragged in the mud by her go%erning bourgeoisie, she reappears to(day, it is true, in a %ery degraded condition in comparison with what she once was. $nd yet how much she di ers rom /ermany3 In Italy, in spite o this decline (( temporary let us hope (( one may li%e and breathe humanly, surrounded by a people which seems to be born or liberty. Italy, e%en bourgeois Italy, can point with pride to men li'e ;a**ini and /aribaldi. .In /ermany one breathes the atmosphere o an immense political and social sla%ery, philosophically e#plained and accepted by a great people with deliberate resignation and ree will. .er heroes (( I spea' always o present /ermany, not o the /ermany o the uture! o aristocratic, bureaucratic, political and bourgeoisie /ermany, not o the /ermany o the prol+taires (( her heroes are quite the opposite o ;a**ini and /aribaldi& they are William I., that erocious and ingenuous representati%e o the "rotestant /od, ;essrs, )ismarc' and ;olt'e, /enerals ;anteu el and Werder. In all her international relations /ermany, rom the beginning o her e#istence, has been slowly, systematically in%ading, conquering, e%er ready to e#tend her own %oluntary ensla%ement into the territory o her neighbours! and, since her de initi%e establishment as a unitary power, she has become a menace, a danger to the liberty o entire +urope. To(day /ermany is ser%ility brutal and triumphant. To show how theoretical idealism incessantly and ine%itably changes into practical materialism, one needs only to cite the e#ample o all the Christian Churches, and, naturally, irst o all, that o the $postolic and 2oman Church. What is there more sublime, in the ideal sense, more disinterested, more separate rom all the interests o this earth, than the doctrine o Christ preached by that Church? $nd what is there more brutally materialistic than the constant practice o that same Church since the eighth century, rom which dates her de initi%e establishment as a power? What has been and still is the principal ob-ect o all her contests with the so%ereigns o +urope? .er temporal goods, her re%enues irst, and then her temporal power, her political pri%ileges. We must do her the -ustice to ac'nowledge that she was the irst to disco%er, in modern history, this incontestable but scarcely Christian truth that wealth and power, the economic e#ploitation and the political oppression o the masses, are the two inseparable terms o the reign o di%ine ideality on earth& wealth consolidating and augmenting power, power e%er disco%ering and creating new sources o wealth, and both assuring, better than the martyrdom and aith o the apostles, better than di%ine grace, the success o the Christian propagandism. This is a historical truth, and the "rotestant Churches do not ail to recognise it either. I spea', o course, o the independent churches o +ngland, $merica, and 0wit*erland, not o the sub-ected churches o /ermany. The latter ha%e no initiati%e o their own! they do what their masters, their temporal so%ereigns, who are at the same time their spiritual

chie tains, order them to do, It is well 'nown that the "rotestant propagandism, especially in +ngland and $merica, is %ery intimately connected with the propagandism o the material, commercial interests o those two great nations! and it is 'nown also that the ob-ects o the latter propagandism is not at all the enrichment and material prosperity o the countries into which it penetrates in company with the Word o /od, but rather the e#ploitation o those countries with a %iew to the enrichment and material prosperity o certain classes, which in their own country are %ery co%etous and %ery pious at the same time. In a word, it is not at all di icult to pro%e, history in hand, that the Church, that all the Churches, Christian and non(Christian, by the side o their spiritualistic propagandism, and probably to accelerate and consolidate the success thereo , ha%e ne%er neglected to organise themsel%es into great corporations or the economic e#ploitation o the masses under the protection and with the direct and special blessing o some di%inity or other! that all the 0tates, which originally, as we 'now, with all their political and -udicial institutions and their dominant and pri%ileged classes ha%e been only temporal branches o these %arious Churches ha%e li'ewise had principally in %iew this same e#ploitation or the bene it o lay minorities indirectly sanctioned by the Church! inally and in general, that the action o the good /od and o all the di%ine idealities on earth has ended at last, always and e%erywhere, in ounding the prosperous materialism o the ew o%er the anatical and constantly amishing idealism o the masses. We ha%e a new proo o this in what we see to(day. With the e#ception o the great hearts and great minds whom I ha%e be ore re erred to as misled, who are to(day the most obstinate de enders o idealism? In the irst places all the so%ereign courts. In 5rance, until lately, 4apoleon III. and his wi e, ;adame +ugDnie! all their ormer ministers, courtiers, and e#(marshals, rom 2ouher and )a*aine to 5leury and "iDtri! the men and women o this imperial world, who ha%e so completely idealised and sa%ed 5rance! their -ournalists and their savants (( the Cssagnacs, the /irardins, the ?u%ernois, the Veuillots, the :e%erriers, the ?umas! the blac' phalan# o ,esuits and ,esuitesses in e%ery garb! the whole upper and middle bourgeoisie o 5rance! the doctrinaire liberals, and the liberals without doctrine (( the /ui*ots, the Thiers, the ,ules 5a%res, the "elletans, and the ,ules 0imons, all obstinate de enders o the bourgeoisie e#ploitation. In "russia, in /ermany, William I., the present royal demonstrator o the good /od on earth! all his generals, all his o icers, "omeranian and other! all his army, which, strong in its religious aith, has -ust conquered 5rance in that ideal way we 'now so well. In 2ussia, the C*ar and his court! the ;oura%ie s and the )ergs, all the butchers and pious proselyters o "oland. +%erywhere, in short, religious or philosophical idealism, the one being but the more or less ree translation o the other, ser%es to(day as the lag o material, bloody, and brutal orce, o shameless material e#ploitation! while, on the contrary, the lag o theoretical materialism, the red lag o economic equality and social -ustice, is raised by the practical idealism o the oppressed and amishing masses, tending to realise the greatest liberty and the human right o each in the raternity o all men on the earth. Who are the real idealists (( the idealists not o abstraction, but o li e, not o hea%en,

but o earth (( and who are the materialists? It is e%ident that the essential condition o theoretical or di%ine idealism is the sacri ice o logic, o human reason, the renunciation o science. We see, urther, that in de ending the doctrines o idealism one inds himsel enlisted per orce in the ran's o the oppressors and e#ploiters o the masses. These are two great reasons which, it would seem, should be su icient to dri%e e%ery great mind, e%ery great heart, rom idealism. .ow does it happen that our illustrious contemporary idealists, who certainly lac' neither mind, nor heart, nor good will, and who ha%e de%oted their entire e#istence to the ser%ice o humanity (( how does it happen that they persist in remaining among the representati%es o a doctrine hence orth condemned and dishonoured? They must be in luenced by a %ery power ul moti%e. It cannot be logic or science, since logic and science ha%e pronounced their %erdict against the idealistic doctrine. 4o more can it be personal interests, since these men are in initely abo%e e%erything o that sort. It must, then, be a power ul moral moti%e. Which? There can be but one. These illustrious men thin', no doubt, that idealistic theories or belie s are essentially necessary to the moral dignity and grandeur o man, and that materialistic theories, on the contrary, reduce him to the le%el o the beasts. $nd i the truth were -ust the opposite3 +%ery de%elopment, I ha%e said, implies the negation o its point o departure. The basis or point o departure, according to the materialistic school, being material, the negation must be necessarily ideal. 0tarting rom the totality o the real world, or rom what is abstractly called matter, it logically arri%es at the real idealisation (( that is, at the humanisation, at the ull and complete emancipation o society. )er contra and or the same reason, the basis and point o departure o the idealistic school being ideal, it arri%es necessarily at the materialisation o society, at the organi*ation o a brutal despotism and an iniquitous and ignoble e#ploitation, under the orm o Church and 0tate. The historical de%elopment o man according to the materialistic school, is a progressi%e ascension! in the idealistic system it can be nothing but a continuous all. Whate%er human question we may desire to consider, we always ind this same essential contradiction between the two schools. Thus, as I ha%e already obser%ed, materialism starts rom animality to establish humanity! idealism starts rom di%inity to establish sla%ery and condemn the masses to an endless animality. ;aterialism denies ree will and ends in the establishment o liberty! idealism, in the name o human dignity, proclaims ree will, and on the ruins o e%ery liberty ounds authority. ;aterialism re-ects the principle o authority, because it rightly considers it as the corollary o animality, and because, on the contrary, the triumph o humanity, the ob-ect and chie signi icance o history, can be realised only through liberty. In a word, you will always ind the idealists in the %ery act o practical materialism, while you will see the materialists pursuing and realising the most grandly ideal aspirations and thoughts. .istory, in the system o the idealists, as I ha%e said, can be nothing but a continuous

all. They begin by a terrible all, rom which they ne%er reco%er (( by the salto mortale rom the sublime regions o pure and absolute idea into matter. $nd into what 'ind o matter 3 4ot into the matter which is eternally acti%e and mobile, ull o properties and orces, o li e and intelligence, as we see it in the real world! but into abstract matter, impo%erished and reduced to absolute misery by the regular looting o these "russians o thought, the theologians and metaphysicians, who ha%e stripped it o e%erything to gi%e e%erything to their emperor, to their /od! into the matter which, depri%ed o all action and mo%ement o its own, represents, in opposition to the di%ine idea, nothing but absolute stupidity, impenetrability, inertia and immobility. The all is so terrible that di%inity, the di%ine person or idea, is lattened out, loses consciousness o itsel , and ne%er more reco%ers it. $nd in this desperate situation it is still orced to wor' miracles 3 5or rom the moment that matter becomes inert, e%ery mo%ement that ta'es place in the world, e%en the most material, is a miracle, can result only rom a pro%idential inter%ention, rom the action o /od upon matter. $nd there this poor ?i%inity, degraded and hal annihilated by its all, lies some thousands o centuries in this swoon, then awa'ens slowly, in %ain endea%ouring to grasp some %ague memory o itsel , and e%ery mo%e that it ma'es in this direction upon matter becomes a creation, a new ormation, a new miracle. In this way it passes through all degrees o materiality and bestiality (( irst, gas, simple or compound chemical substance, mineral, it then spreads o%er the earth as %egetable and animal organi*ation till it concentrates itsel in man. .ere it would seem as i it must become itsel again, or it lights in e%ery human being an angelic spar', a particle o its own di%ine being, the immortal soul. .ow did it manage to lodge a thing absolutely immaterial in a thing absolutely material! how can the body contain, enclose, limit, paralyse pure spirit? This, again, is one o those questions which aith alone, that passionate and stupid a irmation o the absurd, can sol%e. It is the greatest o miracles. .ere, howe%er, we ha%e only to establish the e ects, the practical consequences o this miracle. $ ter thousands o centuries o %ain e orts to come bac' to itsel , ?i%inity, lost and scattered in the matter which it animates and sets in motion, inds a point o support, a sort o ocus or sel (concentration. This ocus is man his immortal soul singularly imprisoned in a mortal body. )ut each man considered indi%idually is in initely too limited, too small, to enclose the di%ine immensity! it can contain only a %ery small particle, immortal li'e the whole, but in initely smaller than the whole. It ollows that the di%ine being, the absolutely immaterial being, mind, is di%isible li'e matter. $nother mystery whose solution must be le t to aith. I /od entire could ind lodgment in each man, then each man would be /od. We should ha%e an immense quantity o /ods, each limited by all the others and yet none the less in inite (( a contradiction which would imply a mutual destruction o men, an impossibility o the e#istence o more than one. $s or the particles, that is another matter! nothing more rational, indeed, than that one particle should be limited by another and be smaller than the whole. 1nly, here another contradiction con ronts us.

To be limited, to be greater and smaller are attributes o matter, not o mind. $ccording to the materialists, it is true, mind is only the wor'ing o the wholly material organism o man, and the greatness or smallness o mind depends absolutely on the greater or less material per ection o the human organism. )ut these same attributes o relati%e limitation and grandeur cannot be attributed to mind as the idealists concei%e it, absolutely immaterial mind, mind e#isting independent o matter. There can be neither greater nor smaller nor any limit among minds, or there is only one mind (( /od. To add that the in initely small and limited particles which constitute human souls are at the same time immortal is to carry the contradiction to a clima#. )ut this is a question o aith. :et us pass on. .ere then we ha%e ?i%inity torn up and lodged, in in initely small particles, in an immense number o beings o all se#es, ages, races, and colours. This is an e#cessi%ely incon%enient and unhappy situation, or the di%ine particles are so little acquainted with each other at the outset o their human e#istence that they begin by de%ouring each other. ;oreo%er, in the midst o this state o barbarism and wholly animal brutality, these di%ine particles, human souls, retain as it were a %ague remembrance o their primiti%e di%inity, and are irresistibly drawn towards their whole! they see' each other, they see' their whole. It is ?i%inity itsel , scattered and lost in the natural world, which loo's or itsel in men, and it is so demolished by this multitude o human prisons in which it inds itsel strewn, that, in loo'ing or itsel , it commits olly a ter olly. )eginning with etishism, it searches or and adores itsel , now in a stone, now in a piece o wood, now in a rag. It is quite li'ely that it would ne%er ha%e succeeded in getting out o the rag, i the other di%inity which was not allowed to all into matter and which is 'ept in a state o pure spirit in the sublime heights o the absolute ideal, or in the celestial regions, had not had pity on it. .ere is a new mystery (( that o ?i%inity di%iding itsel into two hal%es, both equally in inite, o which one (( /od the 5ather (( stays in the purely immaterial regions, and the other (( /od the 0on(( alls into matter. We shall see directly, between these two ?i%inities separated rom each other, continuous relations established, rom abo%e to below and rom below to abo%e! and these relations, considered as a single eternal and constant act, will constitute the .oly /host. 0uch, in its %eritable theological and metaphysical meaning, is the great, the terrible mystery o the Christian Trinity. )ut let us lose no time in abandoning these heights to see what is going on upon earth. /od the 5ather, seeing rom the height o his eternal splendour that the poor /od the 0on, lattened out and astounded by his all, is so plunged and lost in matter that e%en ha%ing reached human state he has not yet reco%ered himsel , decides to come to his aid. 5rom this immense number o particles at once immortal, di%ine, and in initely small, in which /od the 0on has disseminated himsel so thoroughly that he does not 'now himsel , /od the 5ather chooses those most pleasing to him, pic's his inspired persons, his prophets, his 9men o %irtuous genius,9 the great bene actors and legislators o humanity& Boroaster, )uddha, ;oses, Con ucius, :ycurgus, 0olon,

0ocrates, the di%ine "lato, and abo%e all ,esus Christ, the complete realisation o /od the 0on, at last collected and concentrated in a single human person! all the apostles, 0aint "eter, 0aint "aul, 0aint ,ohn be ore all, Constantine the /reat, ;ahomet, then Charlemagne, /regory VII ?ante, and, according to some, :uther also, Voltaire and 2ousseau, 2obespierre and ?anton, and many other great and holy historical personages, all o whose names it is impossible to recapitulate, but among whom I, as a 2ussian, beg that 0aint 4icholas may not be orgotten. Then we ha%e reached at last the mani estation o /od upon earth. )ut immediately /od appears, man is reduced to nothing. It will be said that he is not reduced to nothing, since he is himsel a particle o /od. "ardon me3 I admit that a particle o a de inite, limited whole, howe%er small it be, is a quantity, a positi%e greatness. )ut a particle o the in initely great, compared with it, is necessarily in initely small, ;ultiply milliards o milliards by milliards o milliards (( their product compared to the in initely great, will be in initely small, and the in initely small is equal to *ero. /od is e%erything! there ore man and all the real world with him, the uni%erse, are nothing. You will not escape this conclusion. /od appears, man is reduced to nothing! and the greater ?i%inity becomes, the more miserable becomes humanity. That is the history o all religions! that is the e ect o all the di%ine inspirations and legislations. In history the name o /od is the terrible club with which all di%inely inspired men, the great 9%irtuous geniuses,9 ha%e beaten down the liberty, dignity, reason, and prosperity o man. We had irst the all o /od. 4ow we ha%e a all which interests us more((that o man, caused solely by the apparition o /od mani ested on earth. 0ee in how pro ound an error our dear and illustrious idealists ind themsel%es. In tal'ing to us o /od they purpose, they desire, to ele%ate us, emancipate us, ennoble us, and, on the contrary, they crush and degrade us. With the name o /od they imagine that they can establish raternity among men, and, on the contrary, they create pride, contempt! they sow discord, hatred, war! they establish sla%ery. 5or with /od come the di erent degrees o di%ine inspiration! humanity is di%ided into men highly inspired, less inspired, uninspired. $ll are equally insigni icant be ore /od, it is true! but, compared with each other, some are greater than others! not only in act(( which would be o no consequence, because inequality in act is lost in the collecti%ity when it cannot cling to some legal iction or institution((but by the di%ine right o inspiration, which immediately establishes a i#ed, constant, petri ying inequality. The highly inspired must be listened to and obeyed by the less inspired, and the less inspired by the uninspired. Thus we ha%e the principle o authority well established, and with it the two undamental institutions o sla%ery& Church and 0tate. 1 all despotisms that o the doctrinaires or inspired religionists is the worst. They are so -ealous o the glory o their /od and o the triumph o their idea that they ha%e no heart le t or the liberty or the dignity or e%en the su erings o li%ing men, o real men. ?i%ine *eal, preoccupation with the idea, inally dry up the tenderest souls, the most compassionate hearts, the sources o human lo%e. Considering all that is, all that happens in the world rom the point o %iew o eternity or o the abstract idea, they

treat passing matters with disdain! but the whole li e o real men, o men o lesh and bone, is composed only o passing matters! they themsel%es are only passing beings, who, once passed, are replaced by others li'ewise passing, but ne%er to return in person. $lone permanent or relati%ely eternal in men is humanity, which steadily de%eloping, grows richer in passing rom one generation to another. I say relatively eternal, because, our planet once destroyed (( it cannot ail to perish sooner or later, since e%erything which has begun must necessarily end (( our planet once decomposed, to ser%e undoubtedly as an element o some new ormation in the system o the uni%erse, which alone is really eternal, who 'nows what will become o our whole human de%elopment? 4e%ertheless, the moment o this dissolution being an enormous distance in the uture, we may properly consider humanity, relati%ely to the short duration o human li e, as eternal. )ut this %ery act o progressi%e humanity is real and li%ing only through its mani estations at de inite times, in de inite places, in really li%ing men, and not through its general idea. The general idea is always an abstraction and, or that %ery reason, in some sort a negation o real li e. I ha%e stated in the $ppendi# that human thought and, in consequence o this, science can grasp and name only the general signi icance o real acts, their relations, their laws((in short, that which is permanent in their continual trans ormations((but ne%er their material, indi%idual side, palpitating, so to spea', with reality and li e, and there ore ugiti%e and intangible. 0cience comprehends the thought o the reality, not reality itsel ! the thought o li e, not li e. That is its limit, its only really insuperable limit, because it is ounded on the %ery nature o thought, which is the only organ o science. Upon this nature are based the indisputable rights and grand mission o science, but also its %ital impotence and e%en its mischie%ous action whene%er, through its o icial licensed representati%es, it arrogantly claims the right to go%ern li e. The mission o science is, by obser%ation o the general relations o passing and real acts, to establish the general laws inherent in the de%elopment o the phenomena o the physical and social world! it i#es, so to spea', the unchangeable landmar's o humanity8s progressi%e march by indicating the general conditions which it is necessary to rigorously obser%e and always atal to ignore or orget. In a word, science is the compass o li e! but it is not li e. 0cience is unchangeable, impersonal, general, abstract, insensible, li'e the laws o which it is but the ideal reproduction, re lected or mental (( that is cerebral 6using this word to remind us that science itsel is but a material product o a material organ, the brain7. :i e is wholly ugiti%e and temporary, but also wholly palpitating with reality and indi%iduality, sensibility, su erings, -oys, aspirations, needs, and passions. It alone spontaneously creates real things and! beings. 0cience creates nothing! it establishes and recognises only the creations o li e. $nd e%ery time that scienti ic men, emerging rom their abstract world, mingle with li%ing creation in the real world, all that they propose or create is poor, ridiculously abstract, bloodless and li eless, still(born, li'e the homunculus created by Wagner, the pedantic disciple o the immortal ?octor 5aust. It ollows that the only mission o science is to enlighten li e, not to go%ern it. The go%ernment o science and o men o science, e%en be they positi%ists, disciples

o $uguste Comte, or, again, disciples o the doctrinaire school o /erman Communism, cannot ail to be impotent, ridiculous, inhuman, cruel, oppressi%e, e#ploiting, male icent. We may say o men o science, as such, what I ha%e said o theologians and metaphysicians& they ha%e neither sense nor heart or indi%idual and li%ing beings. We cannot e%en blame them or this, or it is the natural consequence o their pro ession. In so ar as they are men o science, they ha%e to deal with and can ta'e interest in nothing e#cept generalities! that do the laws E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . they are not e#clusi%ely men o science, but are also more or less men o li e. F

III
4e%ertheless, we must not rely too much on this. Though we may be well nigh certain that a savant would not dare to treat a man today as he treats a rabbit, it remains always to be eared that the savants as a body, i not inter ered with, may submit li%ing men to scienti ic e#periments, undoubtedly less cruel but none the less disagreeable to their %ictims. I they cannot per orm e#periments upon the bodies o indi%iduals, they will as' nothing better than to per orm them on the social body, and that what must be absolutely pre%ented. In their e#isting organisation, monopolising science and remaining thus outside o social li e, the savants orm a separate caste, in many respects analogous to the priesthood. 0cienti ic abstractions is their /od, li%ing and real indi%iduals are their %ictims, and they are the consecrated and licensed sacri icers. 0cience cannot go outside o the sphere o abstractions. In this respect it is in initely in erior to art, which, in its turn, is peculiarly concerned also with general types and general situations, but which incarnates them by an arti ice o its own in orms which, i they are not li%ing in the sense o real li e none the less e#cite in our imagination the memory and sentiment o li e! art in a certain sense indi%iduali*es the types and situations which it concei%es! by means o the indi%idualities without lesh and bone, and consequently permanent and immortal, which it has the power to create, it recalls to our minds the li%ing, real indi%idualities which appear and disappear under our eyes. $rt, then, is as it were the return o abstraction to li e! science, on the contrary, is the perpetual immolation o li e, ugiti%e, temporary, but real, on the altar o eternal abstractions. 0cience is as incapable o grasping the indi%iduality o a man as that o a rabbit, being equally indi erent to both. 4ot that it is ignorant o the principle o indi%iduality& it concei%es it per ectly as a principle, but not as a act. It 'nows %ery well that all the animal species, including the human species, ha%e no real e#istence outside o an inde inite number o indi%iduals, born and dying to ma'e room or new indi%iduals equally ugiti%e. It 'nows that in rising rom the animal species to the superior species the principle o indi%iduality becomes more pronounced! the indi%iduals appear reer and more complete. It 'nows that man, the last and most

per ect animal o earth, presents the most complete and most remar'able indi%iduality, because o his power to concei%e, concrete, personi y, as it were, in his social and pri%ate e#istence, the uni%ersal law. It 'nows, inally, when it is not %itiated by theological or metaphysical, political or -udicial doctrinairisme, or e%en by a narrow scienti ic pride, when it is not dea to the instincts and spontaneous aspirations o li e(( it 'nows 6and this is its last word7 that respect or man is the supreme law o .umanity, and that the great, the real ob-ect o history, its only legitimate ob-ect is the humani*ation and emancipation, the real liberty, the prosperity and happiness o each indi%idual li%ing in society. 5or, i we would not all bac' into the liberticidal iction o the public wel are represented by the 0tate, a iction always ounded on the systematic sacri ice o the people, we must clearly recogni*e that collecti%e liberty and prosperity e#ist only so ar as they represent the sum o indi%idual liberties and prosperities. 0cience 'nows all these things, but it does not and cannot go beyond them. $bstraction being its %ery nature, it can well enough concei%e the principle o real and li%ing indi%iduality, but it can ha%e no dealings with real and li%ing indi%iduals! it concerns itsel with indi%iduals in general, but not with "eter or ,ames, not with such or such a one, who, so ar as it is concerned, do not, cannot, ha%e any e#istence. Its indi%iduals, I repeat, are only abstractions. 4ow, history is made, not by abstract indi%iduals, but by acting, li%ing and passing indi%iduals. $bstractions ad%ance only when borne orward by real men. 5or these beings made, not in idea only, but in reality o lesh and blood, science has no heart& it considers them at most as material for intellectual and social development. What does it care or the particular conditions and chance ate o "eter or ,ames? It would ma'e itsel ridiculous, it would abdicate, it would annihilate itsel , i it wished to concern itsel with them otherwise than as e#amples in support o its eternal theories. $nd it would be ridiculous to wish it to do so, or its mission lies not there. It cannot grasp the concrete! it can mo%e only in abstractions. Its mission is to busy itsel with the situation and the general conditions o the e#istence and de%elopment, either o the human species in general, or o such a race, such a people, such a class or category o indi%iduals! the general causes o their prosperity, their decline, and the best general methods o securing, their progress in all ways. "ro%ided it accomplishes this tas' broadly and rationally, it will do its whole duty, and it would be really un-ust to e#pect more o it. )ut it would be equally ridiculous, it would be disastrous to entrust it with a mission which it is incapable o ul illing. 0ince its own nature orces it to ignore the e#istence o "eter and ,ames, it must ne%er be permitted, nor must anybody be permitted in its name, to go%ern "eter and ,ames. 5or it were capable o treating them almost as it treats rabbits. 1r rather, it would continue to ignore them! but its licensed representati%es, men not at all abstract, but on the contrary in %ery acti%e li e and ha%ing %ery substantial interests, yielding to the pernicious in luence which pri%ilege ine%itably e#ercises upon men, would inally leece other men in the name o science, -ust as they ha%e been leeced hitherto by priests, politicians o all shades, and lawyers, in the name o /od, o the 0tate, o -udicial 2ight.

What I preach then is, to a certain e#tent, the revolt of life against science, or rather against the government o science, not to destroy science(that would be high treason to humanity(but to remand it to its place so that it can ne%er lea%e it again. Until now all human history has been only a perpetual and bloody immolation o millions o poor human beings in honor o some pitiless abstraction(/od, country, power o 0tate, national honor, historical rights, -udicial rights, political liberty, public wel are. 0uch has been up to today the natural, spontaneous, and ine%itable mo%ement o human societies. We cannot undo it! we must submit to it so ar as the past is concerned, as we submit to all natural atalities. We must belie%e that that was the only possible way, to educate the human race. 5or we must not decei%e oursel%es& e%en in attributing the larger part to the ;achia%ellian wiles o the go%erning classes, we ha%e to recogni*e that no minority would ha%e been power ul enough to impose all these horrible sacri ices upon the masses i there had not been in the masses themsel%es a di**y spontaneous mo%ement which pushed them on to continual sel ( sacri ice, now to one, now to another o these de%ouring abstractions the %ampires o history e%er nourished upon human blood. We readily understand that this is %ery grati ying, to the theologians, politicians, and -urists. "riests o these abstractions, they li%e only by the continual immolation o the people. 4or is it more surprising that metaphysics too, should gi%e its consent. Its only mission is to -usti y and rationali*e as ar as possible the iniquitous and absurd. )ut that positi%e science itsel should ha%e shown the same tendencies is a act which we must deplore while we establish it. That it has done so is due to two reasons& in the irst place, because, constituted outside o li e, it is represented by a pri%ileged body! and in the second place, because thus ar it has posited itsel as an absolute and inal ob-ect o all human de%elopment. )y a -udicious criticism, which it can and inally will be orced to pass upon itsel , it would understand, on the contrary, that it is only a means or the reali*ation o a much higher ob-ect(that o the complete humani*ation o the real situation o all the real indi%iduals who are born, who li%e, and who die, on earth. The immense ad%antage o positi%e science o%er theology, metaphysics, politics, and -udicial right consists in this(that, in place o the alse and atal abstractions set up by these doctrines, it posits true abstractions which e#press the general nature and logic o things, their general relations, and the general laws o their de%elopment. This separates it pro oundly rom all preceding doctrines, and will assure it or e%er a great position in society& it will constitute in a certain sense society8s collecti%e consciousness. )ut there is one aspect in which it resembles all these doctrines& its only possible ob-ect being abstractions, it is orced by its %ery nature to ignore real men, outside o whom the truest abstractions ha%e no e#istence. To remedy this radical de ect positi%e science will ha%e to proceed by a di erent method rom that ollowed by the doctrines o the past. The latter ha%e ta'en ad%antage o the ignorance o the masses to sacri ice them with delight to their abstractions, which by the way, are always %ery lucrati%e to those who represent them in lesh and bone. "ositi%e science, recogni*ing its absolute inability to concei%e real indi%iduals and interest itsel in their lot, must de initely and absolutely renounce all claim to the

go%ernment o societies! or i it should meddle therein, it would only sacri ice continually the li%ing men whom it ignores to the abstractions which constitute the sole ob-ect o its legitimate preoccupations. The true science o history, or instance, does not yet e#ist! scarcely do we begin today to catch a glimpse o its e#tremely complicated conditions. )ut suppose it were de initely de%eloped, what could it gi%e us? It would e#hibit a aith ul and rational picture o the natural de%elopment o the general conditions(material and ideal, economical, political and social, religious, philosophical, aesthetic, and scienti ic(o the societies which ha%e a history. )ut this uni%ersal picture o human ci%ili*ation, howe%er detailed it might be, would ne%er show anything beyond general and consequently abstract estimates. The milliards o indi%iduals who ha%e urnished the living and suffering materials o this history at once triumphant and dismal( triumphant by its general results, dismal by the immense hecatomb o human %ictims 9crushed under its car9(those milliards o obscure indi%iduals without whom none o the great abstract results o history would ha%e been obtained(and who, bear in mind, ha%e ne%er bene ited by any o these results(will ind no place, not e%en the slightest in our annals. They ha%e li%ed and been sacri iced, crushed or the good o abstract humanity, that is all. 0hall we blame the science o history. That would be un-ust and ridiculous. Indi%iduals cannot be grasped by thought, by re lection, or e%en by human speech, which is capable o e#pressing abstractions only! they cannot be grasped in the present day any more than in the past. There ore social science itsel , the science o the uture, will necessarily continue to ignore them. $ll that, we ha%e a right to demand o it is that it shall point us with aith ul and sure hand to the general causes of individual suffering( among these causes it will not orget the immolation and subordination 6still too requent, alas37 o li%ing indi%iduals to abstract generalities(at the same time showing us the general conditions necessary to the real emancipation of the individuals living in society. That is its mission! those are its limits, beyond which the action o social science can be only impotent and atal. )eyond those limits being the doctrinaire and go%ernmental pretentious o its licensed representati%es, its priests. It is time to ha%e done with all popes and priests! we want them no longer, e%en i they call themsel%es 0ocial ?emocrats. 1nce more, the sole mission o science is to light the road. 1nly :i e, deli%ered rom all its go%ernmental and doctrinaire barriers, and gi%en ull liberty o action, can create. .ow sol%e this antinomy? 1n the one hand, science is indispensable to the rational organi*ation o society! on the other, being incapable o interesting itsel in that which is real and li%ing, it must not inter ere with the real or practical organi*ation o society. This contradiction can be sol%ed only in one way& by the liquidation o science as a moral being e#isting outside the li e o all, and represented by a body o bre%eted savants; it must spread among the masses. 0cience, being called upon to hence orth represent society8s collecti%e consciousness, must really become the property o

e%erybody. Thereby, without losing anything o its uni%ersal character, o which it can ne%er di%est itsel without ceasing to be science, and while continuing to concern itsel e#clusi%ely with general causes, the conditions and i#ed relations o indi%iduals and things, it will become one in act with the immediate and real li e o all indi%iduals. That will be a mo%ement analogous to that which said to the "rotestants at the beginning o the 2e ormation that there was no urther need o priests or man, who would hence orth be his own priest, e%ery man, than's to the in%isible inter%ention o the :ord ,esus Christ alone, ha%ing at last succeeded in swallowing his good /od. )ut here the question is not o ,esus Christ, nor good /od, nor o political liberty, nor o -udicial right(things all theologically or metaphysically re%ealed, and all ali'e indigestible. The world o scienti ic abstractions is not re%ealed! it is inherent in the real world, o which it is only the general or abstract e#pression and representation. $s long as it orms a separate region, specially represented by the savants as a body, this ideal world threatens to ta'e the place o a good /od to the real world, reser%ing or its licensed representati%es the o ice o priests. That is the reason why it is necessary to dissol%e the special social organi*ation o the savants by general instruction, equal or all in all things, in order that the masses, ceasing to be loc's led and shorn by pri%ileged priests, may ta'e into their own hands the direction o their destinies.G )ut until the masses shall ha%e reached this degree o instruction, will it be necessary to lea%e them to the go%ernment o scienti ic men? Certainly not. It would be better or them to dispense with science than allow themsel%es to be go%erned by savants. The irst consequence o the go%ernment o these men would be to render science inaccessible to the people, and such a go%ernment would necessarily be aristocratic because the e#isting scienti ic institutions are essentially aristocratic. $n aristocracy o learning3 rom the practical point o %iew the most implacable, and rom the social point o %iew the most haughty and insulting(such would be the power established in the name o science. This r+gime would be capable o paraly*ing the li e and mo%ement o society. The savants always presumptuous, e%er sel (su icient and e%er impotent, would desire to meddle with e%erything, and the sources o li e would dry up under the breath o their abstractions. 1nce more, :i e, not science, creates li e! the spontaneous action o the people themsel%es alone can create liberty. Undoubtedly it would be a %ery ortunate thing i science could, rom this day orth, illuminate the spontaneous march o the people towards their emancipation. )ut better an absence o light than a alse and eeble light, 'indled only to mislead those who ollow it. $ ter all, the people will not lac' light. 4ot in %ain ha%e they tra%ersed a long historic career, and paid or their errors by centuries o misery. The practical summary o their pain ul e#periences constitutes a sort o traditional science, which in certain respects is worth as much as theoretical science. :ast o all, a portion o the youth(( those o the bourgeois students who eel hatred enough or the alsehood, hypocrisy, in-ustice, and cowardice o the bourgeoisie to ind courage to turn their bac's upon it, and passion enough to unreser%edly embrace the -ust and human cause o the proletariat(those will be, as I ha%e already said, raternal instructors o the people! than's to them, there will be no

occasion or the go%ernment o the savants. I the people should beware o the go%ernment o the savants, all the more should they pro%ide against that o the inspired idealists. The more sincere these belie%ers and poets o hea%en, the more dangerous they become. The scienti ic abstraction, I ha%e said, is a rational abstraction, true in its essence, necessary to li e, o which it is the theoretical representation, or, i one pre ers, the conscience. It may, it must be, absorbed and digested by li e. The idealistic abstraction, /od, is a corrosi%e poison, which destroys and decomposes li e, alsi ies and 'ills it. The pride o the idealists, not being personal but di%ine, is in%incible and ine#orable& it may, it must, die, but it will ne%er yield, and while it has a breath le t it will try to sub-ect men to its /od, -ust as the lieutenants o "russia, these practical idealists o /ermany, would li'e to see the people crushed under the spurred boot o their emperor. The aith is the same, the end but little di erent, and the result, as that o aith, is sla%ery. It is at the same time the triumph o the ugliest and most brutal materialism. There is no need to demonstrate this in the case o /ermany! one would ha%e to be blind to a%oid seeing it at the present hour. )ut I thin' it is still necessary to demonstrate it in the case o di%ine idealism. ;an, li'e all the rest o nature, is an entirely material being. The mind, the acility o thin'ing, o recei%ing and re lecting upon di erent e#ternal and internal sensations, o remembering them when they ha%e passed and reproducing them by the imagination, o comparing and distinguishing them, o abstracting determinations common to them and thus creating general concepts, and inally o orming ideas by grouping and combining concepts according to di erent methods (( (intelligence, in a word, sole creator o our whole, ideal world, is a property o the animal body and especially o the quite material organism o the brain. We 'now this certainly, by the e#perience o all, which no act has e%er contradicted and which any man can %eri y at any moment o his li e. In all animals, without e#cepting the wholly in erior species, we ind a certain degree o intelligence, and we see that, in the series o species, animal intelligence de%elops in proportion as the organi*ation o a species approaches that o man, but that in man alone it attains to that power o abstraction which properly constitutes thought. Uni%ersal e#perience,H which is the sole origin, the source o all our 'nowledge, shows us, there ore, that all intelligence is always attached to some animal body, and that the intensity, the power, o this animal unction depends on the relati%e per ection o the organism. The latter o these results o uni%ersal e#perience is not applicable only to the di erent animal species! we establish it li'ewise in men, whose intellectual and moral power depends so clearly upon the greater or less per ection o their organism as a race, as a nation, as a class, and as indi%iduals, that it is not necessary to insist upon this point.I 1n the other hand, it is certain that no man has e%er seen or can see pure mind, detached rom all material orm e#isting separately rom any animal body whatsoe%er. )ut i no person has seen it, how is it that men ha%e come to belie%e in its e#istence? The act o this belie is certain and i not uni%ersal, as all the idealists

pretend, at least %ery general, and as such it is entirely worthy o our closest attention, or a general belie , howe%er oolish it may be, e#ercises too potent a sway o%er the destiny o men to warrant us in ignoring it or putting it aside. The e#planation o this belie , moreo%er, is rational enough. The e#ample a orded us by children and young people, and e%en by many men long past the age o ma-ority, shows us that man may use his mental aculties or a long time be ore accounting to himsel or the way in which he uses them, be ore becoming clearly conscious o it. ?uring this wor'ing o the mind unconscious o itsel , during this action o innocent or belie%ing intelligence, man, obsessed by the e#ternal world, pushed on by that internal goad called li e and its mani old necessities, creates a quantity o imaginations, concepts, and ideas necessarily %ery imper ect at irst and con orming but slightly to the reality o the things and acts which they endea%our to e#press 4ot ha%ing yet the consciousness o his own intelligent action, not 'nowing yet that he himsel has produced and continues to produce these imaginations, these concepts, these ideas, ignoring their wholly sub&ective (( that is, human((origin, he must naturally consider them as ob&ective beings, as real beings, wholly independent o him, e#isting by themsel%es and in themsel%es. It was thus that primiti%e peoples, emerging slowly rom their animal innocence, created their gods. .a%ing created them, not suspecting that they themsel%es were the real creators, they worshipped them! considering them as real beings in initely superior to themsel%es, they attributed omnipotence to them, and recognised themsel%es as their creatures, their sla%es. $s ast as human ideas de%elop, the gods, who, as I ha%e already stated, were ne%er anything more than a antastic, ideal, poetical re%erberation o an in%erted image, become idealised also. $t irst gross etishes, they gradually become pure spirits, e#isting outside o the %isible world, and at last, in the course o a long historic e%olution, are con ounded in a single ?i%ine )eing, pure, eternal, absolute 0pirit, creator and master o the worlds. In e%ery de%elopment, -ust or alse, real or imaginary collecti%e or indi%idual, it is always the irst step, the irst act that is the most di icult. That step once ta'en, the rest ollows naturally as a necessary consequence. The di icult step in the historical de%elopment o this terrible religious insanity which continues to obsess and crush us was to posit a di%ine world as such, outside the world. This irst act o madness, so natural rom the physiological point o %iew and consequently necessary in the history o humanity, was not accomplished at a single stro'e. I 'now not how many centuries were needed to de%elop this belie and ma'e it a go%erning in luence upon the mental customs o men. )ut, once established, it became omnipotent, as each insane notion necessarily becomes when it ta'es possession o man8s brain. Ta'e a madman, whate%er the ob-ect o his madness((you will ind that obscure and i#ed idea which obsesses him seems to him the most natural thing in the world, and that, on the contrary, the real things which contradict this idea seem to him ridiculous and odious ollies. Well religion is a collecti%e insanity, the more power ul because it is traditional olly, and because its origin is lost in the most remote antiquity. $s collecti%e insanity it has penetrated to the %ery depths o the public and pri%ate e#istence o the peoples! it is incarnate in society! it has become, so to spea', the

collecti%e soul and thought. +%ery man is en%eloped in it rom his birth! he suc's it in with his mother8s mil', absorbs it with all that he touches, all that he sees. .e is so e#clusi%eJy ed upon it, so poisoned and penetrated by it in all his being that later, howe%er power ul his natural mind, he has to ma'e unheard(o e orts to deli%er himsel rom it, and then ne%er completely succeeds. We ha%e one proo o this in our modern idealists, and another in our doctrinaire materialists((the /erman Communists. They ha%e ound no way to sha'e o the religion o the 0tate. The supernatural world, the di%ine world, once well established in the imagination o the peoples, the de%elopment o the %arious religious systems has ollowed its natural and logical course, con orming, moreo%er, in all things to the contemporary de%elopment o economical and political relations o which it has been in all ages, in the world o religious ancy, the aith ul reproduction and di%ine consecration. Thus has the collecti%e and historical insanity which calls itsel religion been de%eloped since etishism, passing through all the stages rom polytheism to Christian monotheism. The second step in the de%elopment o religious belie s, undoubtedly the most di icult ne#t to the establishment o a separate di%ine world, was precisely this transition rom polytheism to monotheism, rom the religious materialism o the pagans to the spiritualistic aith o the Christians. 0he pagan gods((and this was their principal characteristic((were irst o all e#clusi%ely national gods. Very numerous, they necessarily retained a more or less material character, or, rather, they were so numerous because they were material, di%ersity being one o the principal attributes o the real world. The pagan gods were not yet strictly the negation o real things! they were only a antastic e#aggeration o them. We ha%e seen how much this transition cost the ,ewish people, constituting, so to spea', its entire history. In %ain did ;oses and the prophets preach the one god! the people always relapsed into their primiti%e idolatry, into the ancient and comparati%ely much more natural and con%enient aith in many good gods, more material, more human, and more palpable. ,eho%ah himsel , their sole /od, the /od o ;oses and the prophets, was still an e#tremely national /od, who, to reward and punish his aith ul ollowers, his chosen people, used material arguments, o ten stupid, always gross and cruel. It does not e%en appear that aith in his e#istence implied a negation o the e#istence o earlier gods. The ,ewish /od did not deny the e#istence o these ri%als! he simply did not want his people to worship them side by side with him, because be ore all ,eho%ah was a %ery ,ealous /od. .is irst commandment was this& 9I am the :ord thy /od, and thou shalt ha%e no other gods be ore me.9 ,eho%ah, then, was only a irst dra t, %ery material and %ery rough, o the supreme deity o modern idealism. ;oreo%er, he was only a national /od, li'e the 2ussian /od worshipped by the /erman generals, sub-ects o the C*ar and patriots o the empire o all the 2ussias! li'e the /erman /od, whom the pietists and the /erman generals, sub-ects o William I. at )erlin, will no doubt soon proclaim. The supreme being cannot be a national /od! he must be the /od o entire .umanity. 4or can the

supreme being be a material being! he must be the negation o all matter(( pure spirit. Two things ha%e pro%ed necessary to the realisation o the worship o the supreme being& 6<7 a realisation, such as it is, o .umanity by the negation o nationalities and national orms o worship! 6=7 a de%elopment, already ar ad%anced, o metaphysical ideas in order to spiritualise the gross ,eho%ah o the ,ews. The irst condition was ul illed by the 2omans, though in a %ery negati%e way no doubt, by the conquest o most o the countries 'nown to the ancients and by the destruction o their national institutions. The gods o all the conquered nations, gathered in the "antheon, mutually cancelled each other. This was the irst dra t o humanity, %ery gross and quite negati%e. $s or the second condition, the spiritualisation o ,eho%ah, that was realised by the /ree's long be ore the conquest o their country by the 2omans. They were the creators o metaphysics. /reece, in the cradle o her history, had already ound rom the 1rient a di%ine world which had been de initely established in the traditional aith o her peoples! this world had been le t and handed o%er to her by the 1rient. In her instincti%e period, prior to her political history, she had de%eloped and prodigiously humanised this di%ine world through her poets! and when she actually began her history, she already had a religion readymade, the most sympathetic and noble o all the religions which ha%e e#isted, so ar at least as a religion((that is, a lie((can be noble and sympathetic. .er great thin'ers((and no nation has had greater than /reece(( ound the di%ine world established, not only outside o themsel%es in the people, but also in themsel%es as a habit o eeling and thought, and naturally they too' it as a point o departure. That they made no theology((that is, that they did not wait in %ain to reconcile dawning reason with the absurdities o such a god, as did the scholastics o the ;iddle $ges((was already much in their a%our. They le t the gods out o their speculations and attached themsel%es directly to the di%ine idea, one, in%isible, omnipotent, eternal, and absolutely spiritualistic but impersonal. $s concerns 0piritualism, then, the /ree' metaphysicians, much more than the ,ews, were the creators o the Christian god. The ,ews only added to it the brutal personality o their ,eho%ah. That a sublime genius li'e the di%ine "lato could ha%e been absolutely con%inced o the reality o the di%ine idea shows us how contagious, how omnipotent, is the tradition o the religious mania e%en on the greatest minds. )esides, we should not be surprised at it, since, e%en in our day, the greatest philosophical genius which has e#isted since $ristotle and "lato, .egel((in spite e%en o @ant8s criticism, imper ect and too metaphysical though it be, which had demolished the ob-ecti%ity or reality o the di%ine ideas((tried to replace these di%ine ideas upon their transcendental or celestial throne. It is true that .egel went about his wor' o restoration in so impolite a manner that he 'illed the good /od or e%er. .e too' away rom these ideas their di%ine halo, by showing to whoe%er will read him that they were ne%er anything more than a creation o the human mind running through history in search o itsel . To put an end to all religious insanities and the di%ine mirage, he le t nothing lac'ing but the utterance o those grand words which were said a ter him, almost at the same time, by two great minds who had ne%er heard o each other((:udwig 5euerbach, the disciple

and demolisher o .egel, in /ermany, and $uguste Comte, the ounder o positi%e philosophy, in 5rance. These words were as ollows& 9;etaphysics are reduced to psychology.9 $ll the metaphysical systems ha%e been nothing else than human psychology de%eloping itsel in history. To(day it is no longer di icult to understand how the di%ine ideas were born, how they were created in succession by the abstracti%e aculty o man. ;an made the gods. )ut in the time o "lato this 'nowledge was impossible. The collecti%e mind, and consequently the indi%idual mind as well, e%en that o the greatest genius, was not ripe or that. 0carcely had it said with 0ocrates& 9@now thysel 39 This sel ( 'nowledge e#isted only in a state o intuition! in act, it amounted to nothing. .ence it was impossible or the human mind to suspect that it was itsel the sole creator o the di%ine world. It ound the di%ine world be ore it! it ound it as history, as tradition, as a sentiment, as a habit o thought! and it necessarily made it the ob-ect o its lo tiest speculations. Thus was born metaphysics, and thus were de%eloped and per ected the di%ine ideas, the basis o 0piritualism. It is true that a ter "lato there was a sort o in%erse mo%ement in the de%elopment o the mind. $ristotle, the true ather o science and positi%e philosophy, did not deny the di%ine world, but concerned himsel with it as little as possible. .e was the irst to study, li'e the analyst and e#perimenter that he was, logic, the laws o human thought, and at the same time the physical world, not in its ideal, illusory essence, but in its real aspect. $ ter him the /ree's o $le#andria established the irst school o the positi%e scientists. They were atheists. )ut their atheism le t no mar' on their contemporaries. 0cience tended more and more to separate itsel rom li e. $ ter "lato, di%ine ideas were re-ected in metaphysics themsel%es! this was done by the +picureans and 0ceptics, two sects who contributed much to the degradation o human aristocracy, but they had no e ect upon the masses. $nother school, in initely more in luential, was ormed at $le#andria. This was the school o neo("latonists. These, con ounding in an impure mi#ture the monstrous imaginations o the 1rient with the ideas o "lato, were the true originators, and later the elaborators, o the Christian dogmas. Thus the personal and gross egoism o ,eho%ah, the not less brutal and gross 2oman conquest, and the metaphysical ideal speculation o the /ree's, materialised by contact with the 1rient, were the three historical elements which made up the spiritualistic religion o the Christians. )e ore the altar o a unique and supreme /od was raised on the ruins o the numerous altars o the pagan gods, the autonomy o the %arious nations composing the pagan or ancient world had to be destroyed irst. This was %ery brutally done by the 2omans who, by conquering the greatest part o the globe 'nown to the ancients, laid the irst oundations, quite gross and negati%e ones no doubt, o humanity. $ /od thus raised abo%e the national di erences, material and social, o all countries, and in a certain sense the direct negation o them, must necessarily be an immaterial and abstract being. )ut aith in the e#istence o such a being, so di icult a matter, could not spring into e#istence suddenly. Consequently, as I ha%e demonstrated in the

$ppendi#, it went through a long course o preparation and de%elopment at the hands o /ree' metaphysics, which were the irst to establish in a philosophical manner the notion o the divine idea, a model eternally creati%e and always reproduced by the %isible world. )ut the di%inity concei%ed and created by /ree' philosophy was an impersonal di%inity. 4o logical and serious metaphysics being able to rise, or, rather, to descend, to the idea o a personal /od, it became necessary, there ore, to imagine a /od who was one and %ery personal at once. .e was ound in the %ery brutal, sel ish, and cruel person o ,eho%ah, the national /od o the ,ews. )ut the ,ews, in spite o that e#clusi%e national spirit which distinguishes them e%en to(day, had become in act, long be ore the birth o Christ, the most international people o the world. 0ome o them carried away as capti%es, but many more e%en urged on by that mercantile passion which constitutes one o the principal traits o their character, they had spread through all countries, carrying e%erywhere the worship o their ,eho%ah, to whom they remained all the more aith ul the more he abandoned them. In $le#andria this terrible god o the ,ews made the personal acquaintance o the metaphysical di%inity o "lato, already much corrupted by 1riental contact, and corrupted her still more by his own. In spite o his national, -ealous, and erocious e#clusi%ism, he could not long resist the graces o this ideal and impersonal di%inity o the /ree's. .e married her, and rom this marriage was born the spiritualistic((but not spirited((/od o the Christians. The neoplatonists o $le#andria are 'nown to ha%e been the principal creators o the Christian theology. 4e%ertheless theology alone does not ma'e a religion, any more than historical elements su ice to create history. )y historical elements I mean the general conditions o any real de%elopment whatsoe%er(( or e#ample in this case the conquest o the world by the 2omans and the meeting o the /od o the ,ews with the ideal o di%inity o the /ree's. To impregnate the historical elements, to cause them to run through a series o new historical trans ormations, a li%ing, spontaneous act was needed, without which they might ha%e remained many centuries longer in the state o unproducti%e elements. This act was not lac'ing in Christianity& it was the propagandism, martyrdom, and death o ,esus Christ. We 'now almost nothing o this great and saintly personage, all that the gospels tell us being contradictory, and so abulous that we can scarcely sei*e upon a ew real and %ital traits. )ut it is certain that he was the preacher o the poor, the riend and consoler o the wretched, o the ignorant, o the sla%es, and o the women, and that by these last he was much lo%ed. .e promised eternal li e to all who are oppressed, to all who su er here below! and the number is immense. .e was hanged, as a matter o course, by the representati%es o the o icial morality and public order o that period. .is disciples and the disciples o his disciples succeeded in spreading, than's to the destruction o the national barriers by the 2oman conquest, and propagated the /ospel in all the countries 'nown to the ancients. +%erywhere they were recei%ed with open arms by the sla%es and the women, the two most oppressed, most su ering, and naturally also the most ignorant classes o the ancient world. 5or e%en such ew proselytes as they made in the pri%ileged and learned world they were indebted in great part to the in luence o women. Their most e#tensi%e propagandism was

directed almost e#clusi%ely among the people, un ortunate and degraded by sla%ery. This was the irst awa'ening, the irst intellectual re%olt o the proletariat. The great honour o Christianity, its incontestable merit, and the whole secret o its unprecedented and yet thoroughly legitimate triumph, lay in the act that it appealed to that su ering and immense public to which the ancient world, a strict and cruel intellectual and political aristocracy, denied e%en the simplest rights o humanity. 1therwise it ne%er could ha%e spread. The doctrine taught by the apostles o Christ, wholly consoling as it may ha%e seemed to the un ortunate, was too re%olting, too absurd rom the standpoint o human reason, e%er to ha%e been accepted by enlightened men $ccording with what -oy the apostle "aul spea's o the scandale de la foi and o the triumph o that divine folie re-ected by the power ul and wise o the century, but all the more passionately accepted by the simple, the ignorant, and the wea'(minded3 Indeed there must ha%e been a %ery deep(seated dissatis action with li e, a %ery intense thirst o heart, and an almost absolute po%erty o thought, to secure the acceptance o the Christian absurdity, the most audacious and monstrous o all religious absurdities. This was not only the negation o all the political, social, and religious institutions o antiquity& it was the absolute o%erturn o common sense, o all human reason. The li%ing being, the real world, were considered therea ter as nothing! whereas the product o man8s abstracti%e aculty, the last and supreme abstraction in which this aculty, ar beyond e#isting things, e%en beyond the most general determinations o the li%ing being, the ideas o space and time. ha%ing nothing le t to ad%ance beyond, rests in contemplation o his emptiness and absolute immobility. That abstraction, that caput mortuum, absolutely %oid o all contents the true nothing, /od, is proclaimed the only real, eternal, all(power ul being. The real $ll is declared nothing and the absolute nothing the $ll. The shadow becomes the substance and the substance %anishes li'e a shadow.<K $ll this was audacity and absurdity unspea'able, the true scandale de la foi, the triumph o credulous stupidity o%er the mind or the masses! and(( or a ew((the triumphant irony o a mind wearied, corrupted, disillusioned, and disgusted in honest and serious search or truth! it was that necessity o sha'ing o thought and becoming brutally stupid so requently elt by sur eited minds& Credo quod absurdum. I belie%e in the absurd! I belie%e in it, precisely and mainly, because it is absurd. In the same way many distinguished and enlightened minds in our day belie%e in animal magnetism, spiritualism, tipping tables, and((why go so ar?((belie%e still in Christianity, in idealism, in /od. The belie o the ancient proletariat, li'e that o the modern, was more robust and simple, less haut go,t. The Christian propagandism appealed to its heart, not to its

mind! to its eternal aspirations, its necessities, its su erings, its sla%ery, not to its reason, which still slept and there ore could 'now nothing about logical contradictions and the e%idence o the absurd. It was interested solely in 'nowing when the hour o promised deli%erance would stri'e, when the 'ingdom o /od would come. $s or theological dogmas, it did not trouble itsel about them because it understood nothing about them The proletariat con%erted to Christianity constituted its growing material but not its intellectual strength. $s or the Christian dogmas, it is 'nown that they were elaborated in a series o theological and literary wor's and in the Councils, principally by the con%erted neo( "latonists o the 1rient. The /ree' mind had allen so low that, in the ourth century o the Christian era, the period o the irst Council, the idea o a personal /od, pure, eternal, absolute mind, creator and supreme master, e#isting outside o the world, was unanimously accepted by the Church 5athers! as a logical consequence o this absolute absurdity, it then became natural and necessary to belie%e in the immateriality and immortality o the human soul, lodged and imprisoned in a body only partially mortal, there being in this body itsel a portion which, while material is immortal li'e the soul, and must be resurrected with it. We see how di icult it was, e%en or the Church 5athers! to concei%e pure minds outside o any material orm. It should be added that, in general, it is the character o e%ery metaphysical and theological argument to see' to e#plain one absurdity by another. It was %ery ortunate or Christianity that it met a world o sla%es. It had another piece o good luc' in the in%asion o the )arbarians. The latter were worthy people, ull o natural orce, and, abo%e all, urged on by a great necessity o li e and a great capacity or it! brigands who had stood e%ery test, capable o de%astating and gobbling up anything, li'e their successors, the /ermans o today! but they were much less systematic and pedantic than these last, much less moralistic, less learned, and on the other hand much more independent and proud, capable o science and not incapable o liberty, as are the bourgeois o modern /ermany. )ut, in spite o all their great qualities, they were nothing but barbarians((that is, as indi erent to all questions o theology and metaphysics as the ancient sla%es, a great number o whom, moreo%er, belonged to their race. 0o that, their practical repugnance once o%ercome, it was not di icult to con%ert them theoretically to Christianity. 5or ten centuries Christianity, armed with the omnipotence o Church and 0tate and opposed by no competition, was able to depra%e, debase, and alsi y the mind o +urope It had no competitors, because outside o the Church there were neither thin'ers nor educated persons. It alone though,, it alone spo'e and wrote, it alone taught. Though heresies arose in its bosom, they a ected only the theological or practical de%elopments o the undamental dogma ne%er that dogma itsel . The belie in /od, pure spirit and creator o the world, and the belie in the immateriality o the soul remained untouched. This double belie became the ideal basis o the whole 1ccidental and 1riental ci%ili*ation o +urope! it penetrated and became incarnate in all the institutions, all the details o the public and pri%ate li e o all classes, and the masses as well.

$ ter that, is it surprising that this belie has li%ed until the present day, continuing to e#ercise its disastrous in luence e%en upon select minds, such as those o ;a**ini, ;ichelet, Auinet, and so many others? We ha%e seen that the irst attac' upon it came rom the renaissance o the ree mind in the i teenth century, which produced heroes and martyrs li'e Vanini, /iordano )runo, and /alileo. $lthough drowned in the noise, tumult, and passions o the 2e ormation, it noiselessly continued its in%isible wor', bequeathing to the noblest minds o each generation its tas' o human emancipation by the destruction o the absurd, until at last, in the latter hal o the eighteenth century, it again reappeared in broad day, boldly wa%ing the lag o atheism and materialism. The human mind, then, one might ha%e supposed, was at last about to deli%er itsel rom all the di%ine obsessions. 4ot at all. The di%ine alsehood upon which humanity had been eeding or eighteen centuries 6spea'ing o Christianity only7 was once more to show itsel more power ul than human truth. 4o longer able to ma'e use o the blac' tribe, o the ra%ens consecrated by the Church, o the Catholic or "rotestant priests, all con idence in whom had been lost, it made use o lay priests, short(robed liars and sophists. among whom the principal rLles de%ol%ed upon two atal men, one the alsest mind, the other the most doctrinally despotic will, o the last century((,. ,. 2ousseau and 2obespierre. The irst is the per ect type o narrowness and suspicious meanness, o e#altation without other ob-ect than his own person, o cold enthusiasm and hypocrisy at once sentimental and implacable, o the alsehood o modern idealism. .e may be considered as the real creator o modern reaction. To all appearance the most democratic writer o the eighteenth century, he bred within himsel the pitiless despotism o the statesman. .e was the prophet o the doctrinaire 0tate, as 2obespierre, his worthy and aith ul disciple, tried to become its high priest. .a%ing heard the saying o Voltaire that, i /od did not e#ist, it would be necessary to in%ent him, ,. ,. 2ousseau in%ented the 0upreme )eing, the abstract and sterile /od o the deists. $nd It was in the name o the 0upreme )eing, and o the hypocritical %irtue commanded by this 0upreme )eing, that 2obespierre guillotined irst the .Dbertists and then the %ery genius o the 2e%olution, ?anton, in whose person he assassinated the 2epublic, thus preparing the way or the thence orth necessary triumph o the dictatorship o )onaparte I. $ ter this great triumph, the idealistic reaction sought and ound ser%ants less anatical, less terrible nearer to the diminished stature o the actual bourgeoisie. In 5rance, Chateaubriand, :amartine, and((shall I say it? Why not? $ll must be said i it is truth((Victor .ugo himsel , the democrat, the republican, the quasi(socialist o today3 and a ter them the whole melancholy and sentimental company o poor and pallid minds who, under the leadership o these masters, established the modern romantic school in /ermany, the 0chlegels, the Tiec's, the 4o%alis, the Werners, the 0chellings, and so many others besides, whose names do not e%en deser%e to be recalled. The literature created by this school was the %ery reign o ghosts and phantoms. It could not stand the sunlight! the twilight alone permitted it to li%e. 4o more could it stand the brutal contact o the masses. It was the literature o the tender, delicate,

distinguished souls, aspiring to hea%en, and li%ing on earth as i in spite o themsel%es. It had a horror and contempt or the politics and questions o the day! but when perchance it re erred to them, it showed itsel ran'ly reactionary, too' the side o the Church against the insolence o the reethin'ers, o the 'ings against the peoples, and o all the aristocrats against the %ile rabble o the streets. 5or the rest, as I ha%e -ust said, the dominant eature o the school o romanticism was a quasi( complete indi erence to politics. $mid the clouds in which it li%ed could be distinguished two real points(( the rapid de%elopment o bourgeois materialism and the ungo%ernable outburst o indi%idual %anities. To understand this romantic literature, the reason or its e#istence must be sought in the trans ormation which had been e ected in the bosom o the bourgeois class since the re%olution o <GI>. 5rom the 2enaissance and the 2e ormation down to the 2e%olution, the bourgeoisie, i not in /ermany, at least in Italy, in 5rance, in 0wit*erland, in +ngland, in .olland, was the hero and representati%e o the re%olutionary genius o history. 5rom its bosom sprang most o the reethin'ers o the i teenth century, the religious re ormers o the two ollowing centuries, and the apostles o human emancipation, including this time those o /ermany, o the past century. It alone, naturally supported by the power ul arm o the people, who had aith in it, made the re%olution o <GHI and 8I>. It proclaimed the down all o royalty and o the Church, the raternity o the peoples, the rights o man and o the citi*en. Those are its titles to glory! they are immortal3 0oon it split. $ considerable portion o the purchasers o national property ha%ing become rich, and supporting themsel%es no longer on the proletariat o the cities, but on the ma-or portion o the peasants o 5rance, these also ha%ing become landed proprietors, had no aspiration le t but or peace, the re(establishment o public order, and the oundation o a strong and regular go%ernment. It there ore welcomed with -oy the dictatorship o the irst )onaparte, and, although always Voltairean, did not %iew with displeasure the Concordat with the "ope and the re(establishment o the o icial Church in 5rance& 9-eligion is so necessary to the people.9 Which means that, satiated themsel%es, this portion o the bourgeoisie then began to see that it was need ul to the maintenance o their situation and the preser%ation o their newly( acquired estates to appease the unsatis ied hunger o the people by promises o hea%enly manna. Then it was that Chateaubriand began to preach.<< 4apoleon ell and the 2estoration brought bac' into 5rance the legitimate monarchy, and with it the power o the Church and o the nobles, who regained, i not the whole, at least a considerable portion o their ormer in luence. This reaction threw the bourgeoisie bac' into the 2e%olution, and with the re%olutionary spirit that o scepticism also was re(awa'ened in it. It set Chateaubriand aside and began to read Voltaire again! but it did not go so ar as ?iderot& its debilitated ner%es could not stand nourishment so strong. Voltaire, on the contrary, at once a reethin'er and a deist, suited it %ery well. )Dranger and ". :. Courier e#pressed this new tendency per ectly. The /od o the good people9 and the ideal o the bourgeois 'ing, at once liberal and democratic, s'etched against the ma-estic and thence orth ino ensi%e

bac'ground o the +mpire8s gigantic %ictories such was at that period the daily intellectual ood o the bourgeoisie o 5rance. :amartine, to be sure, e#cited by a %ain and ridiculously en%ious desire to rise to the poetic height o the great )yron, had begun his coldly delirious hymns in honour o the /od o the nobles and o the legitimate monarchy. )ut his songs resounded only in aristocratic salons. The bourgeoisie did not hear them. )Dranger was its poet and Courier was its political writer. The re%olution o ,uly resulted in li ting its tastes. We 'now that e%ery bourgeois in 5rance carries within him the imperishable type o the bourgeois gentleman, a type which ne%er ails to appear immediately the par%enu acquires a little wealth and power. In <H>K the wealthy bourgeoisie had de initely replaced the old nobility in the seats o power. It naturally tended to establish a new aristocracy. $n aristocracy o capital irst o all, but also an aristocracy o intellect, o good manners and delicate sentiments. It began to eel religious. This was not on its part simply an aping o aristocratic customs. It was also a necessity o its position. The proletariat had rendered it a inal ser%ice in once more aiding it to o%erthrow the nobility. The bourgeoisie now had no urther need o its co( operation, or it elt itsel irmly seated in the shadow o the throne o ,uly, and the alliance with the people, thence orth useless, began to become incon%enient. It was necessary to remand it to its place, which naturally could not be done without pro%o'ing great indignation among the masses. It became necessary to restrain this indignation. In the name o what? In the name o the bourgeois interest bluntly con essed ? That would ha%e been much too cynical. The more un-ust and inhuman an interest is, the greater need it has o sanction. 4ow, where ind it i not in religion, that good protectress o al I the well( ed and the use ul consoler o the hungry? $nd more than e%er the triumphant bourgeoisie saw that religion was indispensable to the people. $ ter ha%ing won all its titles to glory in religious, philosophical, and political opposition, in protest and in re%olution, it at last became the dominant class and thereby e%en the de ender and preser%er o the 0tate, thence orth the regular institution o the e#clusi%e power o that class. The 0tate is orce, and or it, irst o all, is the right o orce, the triumphant argument o the needle(gun, o the chassepot. )ut man is so singularly constituted that this argument, wholly eloquent as it may appear, is not su icient in the long run. 0ome moral sanction or other is absolutely necessary to en orce his respect. 5urther, this sanction must be at once so simple and so plain that it may con%ince the masses, who, a ter ha%ing been reduced by the power o the 0tate. must also be induced to morally recognise its right. There are only two ways o con%incing the masses o the goodness o any social institution whate%er. The irst, the only real one, but also the most di icult to adopt(( because it implies the abolition o the 0tate, or, in other words, the abolition o the organised political e#ploitation o the ma-ority by any minority whatsoe%er((would be the direct and complete satis action o the needs and aspirations o the people, which would be equi%alent to the complete liquidation o the political and

economical e#istence o the bourgeois class, or, again, to the abolition o the 0tate. )ene icial means or the masses, but detrimental to bourgeois interests! hence it is useless to tal' about them. The only way, on the contrary, harm ul only to the people, precious in its sal%ation o bourgeois pri%ileges, is no other than religion. That is the eternal mirage which leads away the masses in a search or di%ine treasures, while much more reser%ed, the go%erning class contents itsel with di%iding among all its members((%ery unequally, moreo%er and always gi%ing most to him who possesses most((the miserable goods o earth and the plunder ta'en rom the people, including their political and social liberty. There is not, there cannot be, a 0tate without religion. Ta'e the reest 0tates in the world((the United 0tates o $merica or the 0wiss Con ederation, or instance((and see what an important part is played in all o icial discourses by di%ine "ro%idence, that supreme sanction o all 0tates. )ut whene%er a chie o 0tate spea's o /od, be he Wil<iam I., the @nouto(/ermanic emperor, or /rant, the president o the great republic, be sure that he is getting ready to shear once more his people( loc'. The 5rench liberal and Voltairean bourgeoisie, dri%en by temperament to a positi%ism 6not to say a materialism7 singularly narrow and brutal, ha%ing become the go%erning class o the 0tate by its triumph o <H>K, had to gi%e itsel an o icial religion. It was not an easy thing. The bourgeoisie could not abruptly go bac' under the yo'e o 2oman Catholicism. )etween it and the Church o 2ome was an abyss o blood and hatred, and, howe%er practical and wise one becomes, it is ne%er possible to repress a passion de%eloped by history. ;oreo%er, the 5rench bourgeoisie would ha%e co%ered itsel with ridicule i it had gone bac' to the Church to ta'e part in the pious ceremonies o its worship, an essential condition o a meritorious and sincere con%ersion. 0e%eral attempted it, it is true, but their heroism was rewarded by no other result than a ruitless scandal. 5inally, a return to Catholicism was impossible on account o the insol%able contradiction which separates the in%ariable politics o 2ome rom the de%elopment o the economical and political interests o the middle class. In this respect "rotestantism is much more ad%antageous. It is the bourgeois religion par e#cellence. It accords -ust as much liberty as is necessary to the bourgeois, and inds a way o reconciling celestial aspirations with the respect which terrestrial conditions demand. Consequently it is especially in "rotestant countries that commerce and industry ha%e been de%eloped. )ut it was impossible or the 5rench bourgeoisie to become "rotestant. To pass rom one religion to another((unless it be done deliberately, as sometimes in the case o the ,ews o 2ussia and "oland, who get baptised three or our times in order to recei%e each time the remuneration allowed them((to seriously change one8s religion, a little aith is necessary. 4ow, in the e#clusi%e positi%e heart o the 5rench bourgeois there is no room or aith. .e pro esses the most pro ound indi erence or all questions which touch neither his poc'et irst nor his social %anity a terwards. .e is as indi erent to "rotestantism as to

Catholicism. 1n the other hand, the 5rench bourgeois could not go o%er to "rotestantism without putting himsel in con lict with the Catholic routine o the ma-ority o the 5rench people, which would ha%e been great imprudence on the part o a class pretending to go%ern the nation. There was still one way le t((to return to the humanitarian and re%olutionary religion o the eighteenth century. )ut that would ha%e led too ar. 0o the bourgeoisie was obliged, in order to sanction its new 0tate, to create a new religion which might be boldly proclaimed, without too much ridicule and scandal, by the whole bourgeois class. Thus was born doctrinaire ?eism. 1thers ha%e told, much better than I could tell it, the story o the birth and de%elopment o this school, which had so decisi%e and((we may well add((so atal an in luence on the political, intellectual, and moral education o the bourgeois youth o 5rance. It dates rom )en-amin Constant and ;adame de 0taMl! its real ounder was 2oyer(Collard! its apostles, /ui*ot, Cousin, Villemain, and many others. Its boldly a%owed ob-ect was the reconciliation o 2e%olution with 2eaction, or, to use the language o the school, o the principle o liberty with that o authority, and naturally to the ad%antage o the latter. This reconciliation signi ied& in politics, the ta'ing away o popular liberty or the bene it o bourgeois rule, represented by the monarchical and constitutional 0tate! in philosophy, the deliberate submission o ree reason to the eternal principles o aith. We ha%e only to deal here with the latter. We 'now that this philosophy was specially elaborated by ;. Cousin, the ather o 5rench eclecticism. $ super icial and pedantic tal'er, incapable o any original conception, o any idea peculiar to himsel , but %ery strong on commonplace, which he con ounded with common sense, this illustrious philosopher learnedly prepared, or the use o the studious youth o 5rance, a metaphysical dish o his own ma'ing the use o which, made compulsory in all schools o the 0tate under the Uni%ersity, condemned se%eral generations one a ter the other to a cerebral indigestion. Imagine a philosophical %inegar sauce o the most opposed systems, a mi#ture o 5athers o the Church, scholastic philosophers, ?escartes and "ascal, @ant and 0cotch psychologists all this a superstructure on the di%ine and innate ideas o "lato, and co%ered up with a layer o .egelian immanence accompanied, o course, by an ignorance, as contemptuous as it is complete, o natural science, and pro%ing -ust as two times two ma'e five the e#istence o a personal /od. . . . .
Footnotes

<

I call it 9iniquitous9 because, as I belie%e I ha%e pro%ed In the $ppendi# alluded to, this mystery has been and still continues to be the consecration o all the horrors which ha%e been and are being committed in the world! I call it unique, because all the other theological and metaphysical absurdities which debase the human mind are but its necessary consequences.
=;r.

0tuart ;ill is perhaps the only one whose serious idealism may be airly doubted, and that or two resons& irst, that i not absolutely the disciple, he is a passionate admirer, an adherent o the

positi%e philosphy o $uguste Comte, a philosophy which, in spite o its numerous reser%ations, is realy $theistic! second, that ;r. 0tuart ;ill is +nglish, and in +ngland to proclaim onesel an $theist is to ostracise onesel , e%en at this late day.
>In

:ondon I once heard ;. :ouis )lanc e#press almost the same idea. 9The best orm o go%ernment,9 said he to me, 9would be that which would in%ariably call men o %irtuous genius to the control o a airs.9
C

1ne day I as'ed ;a**ini what measures would be ta'en or the emancipation o the people, once his triumphant unitary republic had been de initely established. 9The irst measure,9 he answered 9will be the oundation o schools or the people.9 9$nd what will the people be taught in these schools?9 9The duties o man (( sacri ice and de%otion.9 )ut where will you ind a su icient number o pro essors to teach these things, which no one has the right or power to teach, unless he preaches by e#ample? Is not the number o men who ind supreme en-oyment in sacri ice and de%otion e#ceedingly limited? Those who sacri ice themsel%es in the ser%ice o a great idea obey a lo ty passion, and, satisfying this personal passion, outside o which li e itsel loses all %alue in their eyes, they generally thin' o something else than building their action into doctrine, while those who teach doctrine usually orget to translate it into action, or the simple reason that doctrine 'ills the li e, the li%ing spontaneity, o action. ;en li'e ;a**ini, in whom doctrine and action orm an admirable unity, are %ery rare e#ceptions. In Christianity also there ha%e been great men, holy men, who ha%e really practised, or who, at least, ha%e passionately tried to practice all that they preached, and whose hearts, o%er lowing with lo%e, were ull o contempt or the pleasures and goods o this world. )ut the immense ma-ority o Catholic and "rotestant priests who, by trade, ha%e preached and still preach the doctrines o chastity, abstinence, and renunciation belie their teachings by their e#ample It is not without reason, but because o se%eral centuries8 e#perience, that among the people o all countries these phrases ha%e become by(words& /s licentious as a priest; as gluttonous as a priest; as ambitious as a priest; as greedy, selfish, and grasping as a priest. It is, then, established that the pro essors o the Christian %irtues, consecrated by the Church, the priests, in the immense ma&ority of cases, ha%e practised quite the contrary o what they ha%e preached. This %ery ma-ority, the uni%ersality o this act, show that the ault is not to be attributed to them as indi%iduals, but to the social position, impossible and contradictory in itsel , in which these indi%iduals are placed. The position o the Christian priest in%ol%es a double contradiction. In the irst place, that between the doctrine o abstinence and renunciation and the positi%e tendencies and needs o human nature (( tendencies and needs which, in some indi%idual cases, always %ery rare, may indeed be continually held bac', suppressed, and e%en entirely annihilated by the constant in luence o some potent intellectual and moral passion! which at certain moments o collecti%e e#altation, may be orgotten and neglected or some time by a large mass o men at once! but which are so undamentally inherent in our nature that sooner or later they always resume their rights& so that, when they are not satis ied in a regular and normal way, they are always replaced at last by unwholesome and monstrous satis action. This is a natural and consequently atal and irresistible law, under the disastrous action o which ine%itably all all Christian priests and especially those o the 2oman Catholic Church. It cannot apply to the pro essors, that is to the priests o the modern Church, unless they are also obliged to preach Christian abstinence and renunciation. )ut there is another contradiction common to the priests o both sects. This contradiction grows out o the %ery title and position o master. $ master who commands, oppresses, and e#ploits is a wholly logical and quite natural personage. )ut a master who sacri ices himsel to those who are subordinated to him by his di%ine or human pri%ilege is a contradictory and quite impossible being. This is the %ery constitution o hypocrisy, so well personi ied by the "ope, who, while calling himsel the lowest servant of the servants of God (( in to'en whereo , ollowing the e#ample o Christ, he e%en washes once a year the eet o twel%e 2oman beggars (( proclaims himsel at the same time %icar o /od, absolute and in allible master o the world. ?o I need to recall that the priests o all churches, ar rom sacri icing themsel%es to the loc's con ided to their care, ha%e always sacri iced them, e#ploited them, and 'ept them in the condition o a loc', partly to satis y

their own personal passions and partly to ser%e the omnipotence o the Church? :i'e conditions, li'e causes, always produce li'e e ects. It will, then, be the same with the pro essors o the modern 0chool di%inely inspired and licensed by the 0tate. They will necessarily become, some without 'nowing it, others with ull 'nowledge o the cause, teachers o the doctrine o popular sacri ice to the power o the 0tate and to the pro it o the pri%ileged classes. ;ust we, then, eliminate rom society all instruction and abolish all schools? 5ar rom it3 Instruction must be spread among the masses without stint, trans orming all the churches, all those temples dedicated to the glory o /od and to the sla%ery o men, into so many schools o human emancipation. )ut, in the irst place, let us understand each other! schools, properly spea'ing, in a normal society ounded on equality and on respect or human liberty, will e#ist only or children and not or adults& and, in order that they may become schools o emancipation and not o ensla%ement, it will be necessary to eliminate, irst o all, this iction o /od, the eternal and absolute ensla%er. The whole education o children and their instruction must be ounded on the scienti ic de%elopment o reason, not on that o aith! on the de%elopment o personal dignity and independence, not on that o piety and obedience! on the worship o truth and -ustice at any cost, and abo%e all on respect or humanity, which must replace always and e%erywhere the worship o di%inity. The principle o authority, in the education o children, constitutes the natural point o departure! it is legitimate, necessary, when applied to children o a tender age, whose intelligence has not yet openly de%eloped itsel . )ut as the de%elopment o e%erything, and consequently o education, implies the gradual negation o the point o departure, this principle must diminish as ast as education and instruction ad%ance, gi%ing place to increasing liberty. $ll rational education is at bottom nothing but this progressi%e immolation o authority or the bene it o liberty, the inal ob-ect o education necessarily being the ormation o ree men ull o respect and lo%e or the liberty o others. There ore the irst day o the pupils8 li e, i the school ta'es in ants scarcely able as yet to stammer a ew words, should be that o the greatest authority and an almost entire absence o liberty! but its last day should be that o the greatest liberty and the absolute abolition o e%ery %estige o the animal or di%ine principle o authority. The principle o authority, applied to men who ha%e surpassed or attained their ma-ority, becomes a monstrosity, a lagrant denial o humanity, a source o sla%ery and intellectual and moral depra%ity. Un ortunately, paternal go%ernments ha%e le t the masses to wallow in an ignorance so pro ound that it will be necessary to establish schools not only or the people8s children, but or the people themsel%es. 5rom these schools will be absolutely eliminated the smallest applications or mani estations o the principle o authority. They will be schools no longer! they will be popular academies, in which neither pupils nor masters will be 'nown, where the people will come reely to get, i they need it, ree instruction, and in which, rich in their own e#perience, they will teach in their turn many things to the pro essors who shall bring them 'nowledge which they lac'. This, then, will be a mutual instruction, an act o intellectual raternity between the educated youth and the people. The real school or the people and or all grown men is li e. The only grand and omnipotent authority, at once natural and rational, the only one which we may respect, will be that o the collecti%e and public spirit o a society ounded on equality and solidarity and the mutual human respect o all its members. Yes. this is an authority which is not at all di%ine, wholly human, but be ore which we shall bow willingly, certain that, ar rom ensla%ing them, it will emancipate men. It will be a thousand times more power ul, be sure o it than all your di%ine, theological metaphysical, political, and -udicial authorities, established by the Church and by the 0tate, more power ul than your criminal codes, your -ailers, and your e#ecutioners. The power o collecti%e sentiment or public spirit is e%en now a %ery serious matter. The men most ready to commit crimes rarely dare to de y it, to openly a ront it. They will see' to decei%e it, but will ta'e care not to be rude with it unless they eel the support o a minority larger or smaller. 4o man, howe%er power ul he belie%es himsel , will e%er ha%e the strength to bear the unanimous contempt o society! no one can li%e without eeling himsel sustained by the appro%al and esteem

o at least some portion o society. $ man must be urged on by an immense and %ery sincere con%iction in order to ind courage to spea' and act against the opinion o all, and ne%er will a sel ish, depra%ed, and cowardly man ha%e such courage. 4othing pro%es more clearly than this act the natural and ine%itable solidarity((this law o sociability((which binds all men together, as each o us can %eri y daily, both on himsel and on all the men whom he 'nows )ut, i this social power e#ists, why has it not su iced hitherto to moralise, to humanise men? 0imply because hitherto this power has not been humanised itsel ! it has not been humanised because the social li e o which it is e%er the aith ul e#pression is based, as we 'now, on the worship o di%inity not on respect or humanity! on authority, not on liberty! on pri%ilege, not on equality! on the e#ploitation, not on the brotherhood o men! on iniquity and alsehood, not on -ustice and truth. Consequently its real action, always in contradiction o the humanitarian theories which it pro esses, has constantly e#ercised a disastrous and depra%ing in luence. It does not repress %ices and crimes! it creates them. Its authority is consequently a di%ine, anti(human authority! its in luence is mischie%ous and bale ul. ?o you wish to render its authority and in luence bene icent and human? $chie%e the social re%olution. ;a'e all needs really solidary, and cause the material and social interests o each to con orm to the human duties o each. $nd to this end there is but one means& ?estroy all the institutions o Inequality! establish the economic and social equality o all, and on this basis will arise the liberty the morality, the solidary humanity o all. I shall return to this, the most important question o 0ocialism.
E F

.ere three pages o )a'unin8s manuscript are missing.

The lost part o this sentence perhaps said& 9I men o science in their researches and e#periments are not treating men actually as they treat animals, the reason is that9 they are not e#clusi%ely men o science, but are also more or less men o li e.
G

0cience, in becoming the patrimony o e%erybody, will wed itsel in a certain sense to the immediate and real li e o each. It will gain in utility and grace what it loses in pride, ambition, and doctrinaire pedantry. This, howe%er, will not pre%ent men o genius, better organi*ed or scienti ic speculation than the ma-ority o their ellows, rom de%oting themsel%es e#clusi%ely to the culti%ation o the sciences, and rendering great ser%ices to humanity. 1nly, they will be ambitious or no other social in luence than the natural in luence e#ercised upon its surroundings by e%ery superior intelligence, and or no other reward than the high delight which a noble mind always inds in the satis action o a noble passion.
H

Uni%ersal e#perience, on which all science rests, must be clearly distinguished rom uni%ersal faith, on which the idealists wish to support their belie s& the irst is a real authentication o acts! the second is only a supposition o acts which nobody has seen, and which consequently are at %ariance with the e#perience o e%erybody.
I

The idealists, all those who belie%e in the immateriality and immortality o the human soul, must be e#cessi%ely embarrassed by the di erence in intelligence e#isting between races, peoples, and indi%iduals. Unless we suppose that the %arious di%ine particles ha%e been irregularly distributed, how is this di erence to be e#plained? Un ortunately there is a considerable number o men wholly stupid, oolish e%en to idiocy. Could they ha%e recei%ed in the distribution a particle at once di%ine and stupid? To escape this embarrassment the idealists must necessarily suppose that all human souls are equal. but that the prisons in which they ind themsel%es necessarily con ined, human bodies, are unequal, some more capable than others o ser%ing as an organ or the pure intellectuality o soul. $ccording to this. such a one might ha%e %ery ine organs at his disposition. such another %ery gross organs. )ut these are distinctions which idealism has not the power to use without alling into inconsistency and the grossest materialism, or in the presence o absolute immateriality o soul all bodily di erences disappear, all that is corporeal, material, necessarily appearing indi erent, equally and absolutely gross. The abyss which separates soul rom body,

absolute immateriality rom absolute materiality, is in inite. Consequently all di erences, by the way ine#plicable and logically impossible, which may e#ist on the other side o the abyss, in matter, should be to the soul null and %oid, and neither can nor should e#ercise any in luence o%er it. In a word, the absolutely immaterial cannot be constrained, imprisoned, and much less e#pressed in any degree whatsoe%er by the absolutely material. 1 all the gross and materialistic 6using the word in the sense attached to it by the idealists7 imaginations which were engendered by the primiti%e ignorance and stupidity o men, that o an immaterial soul imprisoned in a material body is certainly the grossest, the most stupid. and nothing better pro%es the omnipotence e#ercised by ancient pre-udices e%en o%er the best minds than the deplorable sight o men endowed with lo ty intelligence still tal'ing o it in our days.
<K

I am well aware that in the theological and metaphysical systems o the 1rient, and especially in those o India, including )uddhism, we ind the principle o the annihilation o the real world in a%our o the ideal and o absolute abstraction. )ut it has not the added character o %oluntary and deliberate negation which distinguishes Christianity! when those systems were concei%ed. the world o human thought o will and o liberty, had not reached that stage o de%elopment which was a terwards seen in the /ree' and 2oman ci%ilisation.
<<

It seems to me use ul to recall at this point an anecdote((one, by the way, well 'nown and thoroughly authentic((which sheds a %ery clear light on the personal %alue o this warmer(o%er o the Catholic belie s and on the religious sincerity o that period. Chateaubriand submitted to a publisher a wor' attac'ing aith. The publisher called his attention to the act that atheism had gone out o ashion, that the reading public cared no more or it, and that the demand, on the contrary, was or religious wor's. Chateaubriand withdrew, but a ew months later came bac' with his Genius of Christianity.