Bakunin.

God and the State, 1871

I

Who is right, the idealists or the materialists? The question, once stated in this way, hesitation
ecomes im!ossile. "ndoutedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. #es, $acts
are e$ore ideas% yes, the ideal, as &roudhon said, is ut a $lower, whose root lies in the material
conditions o$ e'istence. #es, the whole history o$ humanity, intellectual and moral, !olitical and
social, is ut a re$lection o$ its economic history.
(ll ranches o$ modem science, o$ true and disinterested science, concur in !roclaiming this
grand truth, $undamental and decisi)e* The social world, !ro!erly s!eaking, the human world + in
short, humanity + is nothing other than the last and su!reme de)elo!ment + at least on our !lanet
and as $ar as we know + the highest mani$estation o$ animality. But as e)ery de)elo!ment
necessarily im!lies a negation, that o$ its ase or !oint o$ de!arture, humanity is at the same time
and essentially the delierate and gradual negation o$ the animal element in man% and it is
!recisely this negation, as rational as it is natural, and rational only ecause natural + at once
historical and logical, as ine)itale as the de)elo!ment 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.
#es, our $irst ancestors, our (dams and our -)es, were, i$ not gorillas, )ery near relati)es o$
gorillas, omni)orous, intelligent and $erocious easts, endowed in a higher degree than the
animals o$ another s!ecies with two !recious $aculties + the power to think and the desire to
rebel.
These $aculties, comining their !rogressi)e action in history, re!resent the essential $actor, the
negati)e !ower in the !ositi)e de)elo!ment o$ human animality, and create consequently all that
constitutes humanity in man.
The Bile, which is a )ery interesting and here and there )ery !ro$ound ook when considered as
one o$ the oldest sur)i)ing mani$estations o$ human wisdom and $ancy, e'!resses this truth )ery
nai)ely in its myth o$ original sin. .eho)ah, who o$ all the good gods adored y men was
certainly the most /ealous, the most )ain, the most $erocious, the most un/ust, the most
loodthirsty, the most des!otic, and the most hostile to human dignity and lierty + .eho)ah had
/ust created (dam and -)e, to satis$y we know not what ca!rice% no dout 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. 0e generously !laced at their dis!osal the whole earth, with all its $ruits and
animals, and set ut a single limit to this com!lete en/oyment. 0e e'!ressly $orade them $rom
touching the $ruit o$ the tree o$ knowledge. 0e wished, there$ore, that man, destitute o$ all
understanding o$ himsel$, should remain an eternal east, e)er on all+$ours e$ore the eternal
God, his creator and his master. But here ste!s in Satan, the eternal reel, the $irst $reethinker and
the emanci!ator o$ worlds. 0e makes man ashamed o$ his estial ignorance and oedience% he
emanci!ates him, stam!s u!on his row the seal o$ lierty and humanity, in urging him to
disoey and eat o$ the $ruit o$ knowledge.
We know what $ollowed. The good God, whose $oresight, which is one o$ the di)ine $aculties,
should ha)e warned him o$ what would ha!!en, $lew into a terrile and ridiculous rage% he
cursed Satan, man, and the world created y himsel$, striking himsel$ so to s!eak 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 y
their $ore$athers. 1ur 2atholic and &rotestant theologians look u!on that as )ery !ro$ound and
)ery /ust, !recisely ecause it is monstrously iniquitous and asurd. Then, rememering that he
was not only a God o$ )engeance and wrath, ut also a God o$ lo)e, a$ter ha)ing tormented the
e'istence o$ a $ew milliards o$ !oor human eings and condemned them to an eternal hell, he
took !ity 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 $or )ictims and lood, he sent into the world, as an e'!iatory
)ictim, his only son, that he might e killed y men. That is called the mystery o$ the
3edem!tion, the asis o$ all the 2hristian religions. Still, i$ the di)ine Sa)ior had sa)ed the
human world4 But no% in the !aradise !romised y 2hrist, as we know, such eing the $ormal
announcement, the elect will numer )ery $ew. The rest, the immense ma/ority o$ the generations
!resent and to come, will urn eternally in hell. 5n the meantime, to console us, God, e)er /ust,
e)er good, hands o)er the earth to the go)ernment o$ the 6a!oleon Thirds, o$ the William 7irsts,
o$ the 7erdinands o$ (ustria, and o$ the (le'anders o$ all the 3ussias.
Such are the asurd tales that are told and the monstrous doctrines that are taught, in the $ull light
o$ the nineteenth century, in all the !ulic schools o$ -uro!e, at the e'!ress command o$ the
go)ernment. They call this ci)ili,ing the !eo!le4 5s it not !lain that all these go)ernments are
systematic !oisoners, interested stu!e$ies o$ the masses?
5 ha)e wandered $rom my su/ect, ecause anger gets hold o$ me whene)er 5 think o$ the ase
and criminal means which they em!loy to kee! the nations in !er!etual sla)ery, undoutedly that
they may e the etter ale to $leece them. 1$ what consequence are the crimes o$ all the
Tro!manns in the world com!ared with this crime o$ treason against humanity committed daily,
in road day, o)er the whole sur$ace o$ the ci)ili,ed world, y those who dare to call themsel)es
the guardians and the $athers o$ the !eo!le? 5 return to the myth o$ original sin.
God admitted that Satan was right% he recogni,ed that the de)il did not decei)e (dam and -)e in
!romising them knowledge and lierty as a reward $or the act o$ disoedience which he ad
induced them to commit% $or, immediately they had eaten o$ the $oridden $ruit, God himsel$ said
8see Bile9* :Behold, man is ecome as o$ the Gods, knowing oth good and e)il% !re)ent him,
there$ore, $rom eating o$ the $ruit o$ eternal li$e, lest he ecome immortal like 1ursel)es.
;et us disregard now the $aulous !ortion o$ this myth and consider its true meaning, which is
)ery clear. <an has emanci!ated himsel$% he has se!arated himsel$ $rom animality and
constituted himsel$ a man% he has egun his distincti)ely human history and de)elo!ment y an
act o$ disoedience and science + that is, y rebellion and y thought.
Three elements or, i$ you like, three $undamental !rinci!les constitute the essential conditions o$
all human de)elo!ment, collecti)e or indi)idual, in history*
819 human animality;%
8=9 thought; and
8>9 rebellion.%
To the $irst !ro!erly corres!onds social and private economy% to the second, science% to the third,
liberty.
5dealists o$ all schools, aristocrats and bourgeois, theologians and meta!hysicians, !oliticians
and moralists, religionists, !hiloso!hers, or !oets, not $orgetting the lieral economists +
unounded worshi!!ers o$ the ideal, as we know + are much o$$ended when told that man, with
his magni$icent intelligence, his sulime ideas, and his oundless as!irations, is, like all else
e'isting in the world, nothing ut matter, only a !roduct o$ vile matter.
We may answer that the matter o$ which materialists s!eak, matter s!ontaneously and eternally
moile, acti)e, !roducti)e, matter chemically or organically determined and mani$ested y the
!ro!erties or $orces, mechanical, !hysical, animal, and intelligent, which necessarily elong to it
+ that this matter has nothing in common with the vile matter o$ the idealists. The latter, a !roduct
o$ their $alse astraction, is indeed a stu!id, inanimate, immoile thing, inca!ale o$ gi)ing irth
to the smallest !roduct, a caput mortuum, an ugly $ancy in contrast to the beautiful $ancy which
they call God% as the o!!osite o$ this su!reme eing, matter, their matter, stri!!ed y that
constitutes its real nature, necessarily re!resents su!reme nothingness. They ha)e taken 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 ut im!enetraility and asolute
immoility in s!ace% they ha)e attriuted all these natural $orces, !ro!erties, and mani$estations
to the imaginary eing created y their astract $ancy% then, interchanging rles, they ha)e
called this !roduct o$ their imagination, this !hantom, this God who is nothing, :su!reme Being:
and, as a necessary consequence, ha)e declared that the real eing, matter, the world, is nothing.
($ter which they gra)ely tell us that this matter is inca!ale o$ !roducing anything, not e)en o$
setting itsel$ in motion, and consequently must ha)e een created y their God.
(t the end o$ this ook 5 e'!osed the $allacies and truly re)olting asurdities to which one is
ine)italy led y this imagination o$ a God, let him e considered as a !ersonal eing, the creator
and organi,er o$ worlds% or e)en as im!ersonal, a kind o$ di)ine soul s!read o)er the whole
uni)erse and constituting thus its eternal !rinci!le% or let him e an idea, in$inite and di)ine,
always !resent and acti)e in the world, and always mani$ested y the totality o$ material and
de$inite eings. 0ere 5 shall deal with one !oint only.
The gradual de)elo!ment o$ the material world, as well as o$ organic animal li$e and o$ the
historically !rogressi)e intelligence o$ man, indi)idually or socially, is !er$ectly concei)ale. 5t
is a wholly natural mo)ement $rom the sim!le to the com!le', $rom the lower to the higher, $rom
the in$erior to the su!erior% a mo)ement in con$ormity with all our daily e'!eriences, and
consequently in con$ormity also with our natural logic, with the distincti)e laws o$ our mind,
which eing $ormed and de)elo!ed only y the aid o$ these same e'!eriences% is, so to s!eak, ut
the mental, cereral re!roduction or re$lected summary thereo$.
The system o$ the idealists is quite the contrary o$ this. 5t is the re)ersal o$ all human e'!eriences
and o$ that uni)ersal and common good sense which is the essential condition o$ all human
understanding, and which, in rising $rom the sim!le and unanimously recogni,ed truth that twice
two are $our to the sulimest and most com!le' scienti$ic considerations + admitting, moreo)er,
nothing that has not stood the se)erest tests o$ e'!erience or oser)ation o$ things and $acts +
ecomes the only serious asis o$ human knowledge.
?ery $ar $rom !ursuing the natural order $rom the lower to the higher, $rom the in$erior to the
su!erior, and $rom the relati)ely sim!le to the more com!le'% instead o$ wisely and rationally
accom!anying the !rogressi)e and real mo)ement $rom the world called inorganic to the world
organic, )egetales, animal, and then distincti)ely human + $rom chemical matter or chemical
eing to li)ing matter or li)ing eing, and $rom li)ing eing to thinking eing + the idealists,
osessed, linded, and !ushed on y the di)ine !hantom which they ha)e inherited $rom
theology, take !recisely the o!!osite course. They go $rom the higher to the lower, $rom the
su!erior to the in$erior, $rom the com!le' to the sim!le. They egin with God, either as a !erson
or as di)ine sustance or idea, and the $irst ste! that they take is a terrile $all $rom the sulime
heights o$ the eternal ideal into the mire o$ the material world% $rom asolute !er$ection into
asolute im!er$ection% $rom thought to eing, or rather, $rom su!reme eing to nothing. When,
how, and why the di)ine eing, eternal, in$inite, asolutely !er$ect, !roaly weary o$ himsel$,
decided u!on this des!erate salto mortale is something which no idealist, no theologian, no
meta!hysician, no !oet, has e)er een ale to understand himsel$ or e'!lain to the !ro$ane. (ll
religions, !ast and !resent, and all the systems o$ transcendental !hiloso!hy hinge on this unique
and iniquitous mystery.
@1A 0oly men, ins!ired lawgi)ers, !ro!hets, messiahs, ha)e searched it $or li$e, and $ound only
torment and death. ;ike the ancient s!hin', it has de)oured them, ecause they could not e'!lain
it. Great !hiloso!hers $rom 0eraclitus and &lato down to Bescartes, S!ino,a* ;einit,, Cant,
7ichte, Schelling, and 0egel, not to mention the 5ndian !hiloso!hers, ha)e written hea!s o$
)olumes and uilt systems as ingenious as sulime, in which they ha)e said y the way many
eauti$ul and grand things and disco)ered immortal truths, ut they ha)e le$t this mystery, the
!rinci!al o/ect o$ their transcendental in)estigations, as un$athomale as e$ore. The gigantic
e$$orts o$ the most Wonder$ul geniuses that the world has known, and who, one a$ter another, $or
at least thirty centuries, ha)e undertaken anew this laor o$ Sisy!hus, ha)e resulted only in
rendering this mystery still more incom!rehensile. 5s it to e ho!ed that it will e un)eiled to us
y the routine s!eculations o$ some !edantic disci!le o$ an arti$icially warmed+o)er meta!hysics
at a time when all li)ing and serious s!irits ha)e aandoned that amiguous science orn o$ a
com!romise + historically e'!licale no dout + etween the unreason o$ $aith and sound
scienti$ic reason?
5t is e)ident that this terrile mystery is ine'!licale + that is, asurd, ecause only the asurd
admits o$ no e'!lanation. 5t is e)ident that whoe)er $inds it essential to his ha!!iness and li$e
must renounce his reason, and return, i$ he can, to nai)e, lind, stu!id $aith, to re!eat with
Tertullianus and all sincere elie)ers these words, which sum u! the )ery quintessence o$
theology* Credo quia absurdum. Then all discussion ceases, and nothing remains ut the
trium!hant stu!idity o$ $aith. But immediately there arises another question* How comes an
intelligent and well-informed man ever to feel the need of believing in this mystery
6othing is more natural than that the elie$ in God, the creator, regulator, /udge, master, curser,
sa)ior, and ene$actor o$ the world, should still !re)ail among the !eo!le, es!ecially in the rural
districts, where it is more wides!read than among the !roletariat o$ the cities. The !eo!le,
un$ortunately, are still )ery ignorant, and are ke!t in ignorance y the systematic e$$orts o$ all the
go)ernments, who consider this ignorance, not without good reason, as one o$ the essential
conditions o$ their own !ower. Weighted down y their daily laor, de!ri)ed o$ leisure, o$
intellectual intercourse, o$ reading, in short o$ all the means and a good !ortion o$ the stimulants
that de)elo! thought in men, the !eo!le generally acce!t religious traditions without criticism
and in a lum!. These traditions surround them $rom in$ancy in all the situations o$ li$e, and
arti$icially sustained in their minds y a multitude o$ o$$icial !oisoners o$ all sorts, !riests and
laymen, are trans$ormed therein into a sort o$ mental and moral ait, too o$ten more !ower$ul
e)en than their natural good sense.
There is another reason which e'!lains and in some sort /usti$ies the asurd elie$s o$ the !eo!le
+ namely, the wretched situation to which they $ind themsel)es $atally condemned y the
economic organi,ation o$ society in the most ci)ili,ed countries o$ -uro!e. 3educed,
intellectually and morally as well as materially, to the minimum o$ human e'istence, con$ined in
their li$e like a !risoner in his !rison, without hori,on, without outlet, without e)en a $uture i$ we
elie)e the economists, the !eo!le would ha)e the singularly narrow souls and lunted instincts
o$ the ourgeois i$ they did not $eel a desire to esca!e% ut o$ esca!e there are ut three methods +
two chimerical and a third real. The $irst two are the dram+sho! and the church, deauchery o$
the ody or deauchery o$ the mind% the third is social re)olution. 0ence 5 conclude this last will
e much more !otent than all the theological !ro!agandism o$ the $reethinkers to destroy to their
last )estige the religious elie$s and dissolute haits o$ the !eo!le, elie$s and haits much more
intimately connected than is generally su!!osed. 5n sustituting $or the at once illusory and
rutal en/oyments o$ odily and s!iritual licentiousness the en/oyments, as re$ined as they are
real, o$ humanity de)elo!ed in each and all, the social re)olution alone will ha)e the !ower to
close at the same time all the dram+sho!s and all the churches.
Till then the !eo!le. Taken as a whole, will elie)e% and, i$ they ha)e no reason to elie)e, they
will ha)e at least a right.
There is a class o$ !eo!le who, i$ they do not elie)e, must at least make a semlance o$
elie)ing. This class com!rising all the tormentors, all the o!!ressors, and all the e'!loiters o$
humanity% !riests, monarchs, statesmen, soldiers, !ulic and !ri)ate $inanciers, o$$icials o$ all
sorts, !olicemen, gendarmes, /ailers and e'ecutioners, mono!olists, ca!italists, ta'+leeches,
contractors and landlords, lawyers, economists, !oliticians o$ all shades, down to the smallest
)endor o$ sweetmeats, all will re!eat in unison those words o$ ?oltaire*
:5$ God did not e'ist, it would e necessary to in)ent him.: 7or, you understand, :the !eo!le
must ha)e a religion.: That is the sa$ety+)al)e.
There e'ists, $inally, a somewhat numerous class o$ honest ut timid souls who, too intelligent to
take the 2hristian dogmas seriously, re/ect them in detail, ut ha)e neither the courage nor the
strength nor the necessary resolution to summarily renounce them altogether. They aandon to
your criticism all the s!ecial asurdities o$ religion, they turn u! their noses at all the miracles,
ut they cling des!erately to the !rinci!al asurdity% the source o$ all the others, to the miracle
that e'!lains and /usti$ies all the other miracles, the e'istence o$ God. Their God is not the
)igorous and !ower$ul eing, the rutally !ositi)e God o$ theology. 5t is a neulous, dia!hanous,
illusory eing that )anishes into nothing at the $irst attem!t to gras! it% it is a mirage, an ignis
fatugs% that neither warms nor illuminates. (nd yet they hold $ast to it, and elie)e that, were it to
disa!!ear, all would disa!!ear with it. They are uncertain, sickly souls, who ha)e lost their
reckoning in the !resent ci)ilisation, elonging to neither the !resent nor the $uture, !ale
!hantoms eternally sus!ended etween hea)en and earth, and occu!ying e'actly the same
!osition etween the !olitics o$ the ourgeois and the Socialism o$ the !roletariat. They ha)e
neither the !ower nor the wish nor the determination to $ollow out their thought, and they waste
their time and !ains in constantly endea)ouring to reconcile the irreconcilale. 5n !ulic li$e
these are known as ourgeois Socialists.
With them, or against them, discussion is out o$ the question. They are too !uny.
But there are a $ew illustrious men o$ whom no one will dare to s!eak without res!ect, and
whose )igorous health, strength o$ mind, and good intention no one will dream o$ calling in
question. 5 need only cite the names o$ <a,,ini, <ichelet, Duinet, .ohn Stuart <ill. @=A Generous
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 a!ostles o$ idealism and itter des!isers
and ad)ersaries o$ materialism, and consequently o$ Socialism also, in !hiloso!hy as well as in
!olitics.
(gainst them, then, we must discuss this question.
7irst, let it e remarked that not one o$ the illustrious men 5 ha)e /ust named nor any other
idealistic thinker o$ any consequence in our day has gi)en any attention to the logical side o$ this
question !ro!erly s!eaking. 6ot one has tried to settle !hiloso!hically the !ossiility o$ the
di)ine salto mortale% $rom the !ure and eternal regions o$ s!irit into the mire o$ the material
world. 0a)e they $eared to a!!roach this irreconcilale contradiction and des!aired o$ sol)ing it
a$ter the $ailures o$ the greatest geniuses o$ history, or ha)e they looked u!on 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 God, and ha)e de)elo!ed only its !ractical moti)es and
consequences. They ha)e treated it as a $act uni)ersally acce!ted, and, as such, no longer
susce!tile o$ any dout whate)er, $or sole !roo$ thereo$ limiting themsel)es to the
estalishment o$ the antiquity and this )ery uni)ersality o$ the elie$ in God.
This im!osing unanimity, in the eyes o$ many illustrious men and writers to quote only the most
$amous o$ them who eloquently e'!ressed it, .ose!h de <aistre and the great 5talian !atriot,
Giuse!!e <a,,ini + is o$ more )alue than all the demonstrations o$ science% and i$ the reasoning
o$ a small numer o$ logical and e)en )ery !ower$ul, ut isolated, thinkers is against it, so much
the worse, they say, $or these thinkers and their logic, $or uni)ersal consent, the general and
!rimiti)e ado!tion o$ an idea, has always een considered the most trium!hant testimony to its
truth. The 5 sentiment o$ the whole world, a con)iction that is $ound E and maintained always and
e)erywhere, cannot e mistaken% it must ha)e its root in a necessity asolutely inherent in the
)ery nature o$ man. (nd since it has een estalished that all !eo!les, !ast and !resent, ha)e
elie)ed and still elie)e in the e'istence o$ God, it is clear that those who ha)e the mis$ortune to
dout it, whate)er the logic that led them to this dout, are anormal e'ce!tions, monsters.
Thus, then, the antiquity% and universality% o$ a elie$ should e regarded, contrary to all science
and all logic, as su$$icient and unim!eachale !roo$ o$ its truth. Why?
"ntil the days o$ 2o!ernicus and Galileo e)eryody elie)ed that the sun re)ol)ed aout the
earth. Was not e)eryody mistaken? What is more ancient and more uni)ersal than sla)ery?
2annialism !erha!s. 7rom the origin o$ historic society down to the !resent day there has een
always and e)erywhere e'!loitation o$ the com!ulsory laour o$ the masses + sla)es, ser$s, or
wage workers + y some dominant minority% o!!ression o$ the !eo!le y the 2hurch and y the
State. <ust it e concluded that this e'!loitation and this o!!ression are necessities asolutely
inherent in the )ery e'istence o$ human society? These are e'am!les which show that the
argument o$ the cham!ions o$ God !ro)es nothing.
6othing, in $act, is as uni)ersal or as ancient as the iniquitous and asurd% truth and /ustice, on
the contrary, are the least uni)ersal, the youngest $eatures in the de)elo!ment o$ human society.
5n this $act, too, lies the e'!lanation o$ a constant historical !henomenon + namely, the
!ersecution o$ which those who $irst !roclaim the truth ha)e een and continue to e the o/ects
at the hands o$ the o$$icial, !ri)ileged, and interested re!resentati)es o$ :uni)ersal: and :ancient:
elie$s, and o$ten also at the hands o$ the same masses who, a$ter ha)ing tortured them, always
end y ado!ting their ideas and rendering them )ictorious.
To us materialists and 3e)olutionary Socialists, there is nothing astonishing or terri$ying in this
historical !henomenon. Strong in our conscience, in our lo)e o$ truth at all ha,ards, in that
!assion $or logic which o$ itsel$ alone constitutes a great !ower and outside o$ which there is no
thought% strong in our !assion $or /ustice and in our unshakeale $aith in the trium!h o$ humanity
o)er all theoretical and !ractical estialities% strong, $inally, in the mutual con$idence and su!!ort
gi)en each other y the $ew who share our con)ictions + we resign oursel)es to all the
consequences o$ this historical !henomenon, in which we see the mani$estation o$ a social law as
natural, as necessary, and as in)ariale as all the other laws which go)ern the world.
This law is a logical, ine)itale consequence o$ the animal origin% o$ human society% $or in $ace
o$ all the scienti$ic, !hysiological, !sychological, and historical !roo$s accumulated at the
!resent day, as well as in $ace o$ the e'!loits o$ the Germans conquering 7rance, which now
$urnish so striking a demonstration thereo$, it is no longer !ossile to really dout this origin. But
$rom the moment that this animal origin o$ man is acce!ted, all is e'!lained. 0istory then
a!!ears to us as the re)olutionary negation, now slow, a!athetic, sluggish, now !assionate and
!ower$ul, o$ the !ast. 5t consists !recisely in the !rogressi)e negation o$ the !rimiti)e animality
o$ man y the de)elo!ment o$ his humanity. <an, a wild east, cousin o$ the gorilla, has
emerged $rom the !ro$ound darkness o$ animal instinct into the light o$ the mind, which e'!lains
in a wholly natural way all his !ast mistakes and !artially consoles us $or his !resent errors. 0e
has gone out $rom animal sla)ery, and !assing through di)ine sla)ery, a tem!orary condition
etween his animality and his humanity, he is now marching on to the conquest and realisation o$
human lierty. Whence it results that the antiquity o$ a elie$, o$ an idea, $ar $rom !ro)ing
anything in its $a)our, ought, on the contrary, to lead us to sus!ect it. 7or ehind us is our
animality and e$ore us our humanity% human light, the only thing that can warm and enlighten
us, the only thing that can emanci!ate us, gi)e us dignity, $reedom, and ha!!iness, and realise
$raternity among us, is ne)er at the eginning, ut, relati)ely to the e!och in which we li)e,
always at the end o$ history. ;et us, then, ne)er look ack, let us look e)er $orward% $or $orward
is our sunlight, $orward our sal)ation. 5$ it is /usti$iale, and e)en use$ul and necessary, to turn
ack to study our !ast, it is only in order to estalish what we ha)e een and what we must no
longer e, what we ha)e elie)ed and thought and what we must no longer elie)e or think, what
we ha)e done and what we must do ne)ermore.
So much $or antiquity. (s $or the universality% o$ an error, it !ro)es ut one thing + the similarity,
i$ not the !er$ect identity, o$ human nature in all ages and under all skies. (nd, since it is
estalished that all !eo!les, at all !eriods o$ their li$e, ha)e elie)ed and still elie)e in God, we
must sim!ly conclude that the di)ine idea, an outcome o$ oursel)es, is an error historically
necessary in the de)elo!ment o$ humanity, and ask why and how it was !roduced in history and
why an immense ma/ority o$ the human race still acce!t it as a truth.
"ntil we shall account to oursel)es $or the manner in which the idea o$ a su!ernatural or di)ine
world was de)elo!ed and had to e de)elo!ed in the historical e)olution o$ the human
conscience, all our scienti$ic con)iction o$ its asurdity will e in )ain% until then we shall ne)er
succeed in destroying it in the o!inion o$ the ma/ority, ecause we shall ne)er e ale to attack it
in the )ery de!ths o$ the hut man eing where it had irth. 2ondemned 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 innumerale mani$estations, whose asurdity will e scarcely eaten
down y the lows o$ common sense e$ore it will rea!!ear in a new $orm no less nonsensical.
While the root o$ all the asurdities that torment the world, elie$ in God, remains intact, it will
ne)er $ail to ring $orth new o$$s!ring. Thus, at the !resent time, in certain sections o$ the highest
society, S!iritualism tends to estalish itsel$ u!on the ruins o$ 2hristianity.
5t is not only in the interest o$ the masses, it is in that o$ the health o$ our own minds, that we
should stri)e to understand the historic genesis, the succession o$ causes which de)elo!ed and
!roduced the idea o$ God in the consciousness o$ men. 5n )ain shall we call and elie)e
oursel)es (theists, until we com!rehend these causes, $or, until then, we shall always su$$er
oursel)es to e more or less go)erned y the clamours o$ this uni)ersal conscience whose secret
we ha)e not disco)ered% and, considering the natural weakness o$ e)en the strongest indi)idual
against the all+!ower$ul in$luence o$ the social surroundings that trammel him, we are always in
danger o$ rela!sing sooner or later, in one way or another, into the ayss o$ religious asurdity.
-'am!les o$ these shame$ul con)ersions are $requent in society today.
Footnotes
[1] 5 call it :iniquitous: ecause, as 5 elie)e 5 ha)e !ro)ed 5n the (!!endi' alluded to, this
mystery has een and still continues to e the consecration o$ all the horrors which ha)e een
and are eing committed in the world% 5 call it unique, ecause all the other theological and
meta!hysical asurdities which dease the human mind are ut its necessary consequences.
[2] <r. Stuart <ill is !erha!s the only one whose serious idealism may e $airly douted, and
that $or two resons* $irst, that i$ not asolutely the disci!le, he is a !assionate admirer, an
adherent o$ the !ositi)e !hilos!hy o$ (uguste 2omte, a !hiloso!hy which, in s!ite o$ its
numerous reser)ations, is realy (theistic% second, that <r. Stuart <ill is -nglish, and in -ngland
to !roclaim onesel$ an (theist is to ostracise onesel$, e)en at this late day.
II

5 ha)e stated the chie$ !ractical reason o$ the !ower still e'ercised today o)er the masses y
religious elie$s. These mystical tendencies do not signi$y in man so much an aerration o$ mind
as a dee! discontent at 0eart. They are the instincti)e and !assionate !rotest o$ the human eing
against the narrowness, the !latitudes, the sorrows, and the shame o$ a wretched e'istence. 7or
this malady, 5 ha)e already said, there is ut one remedy + Social 3e)olution.
5n the meantime 5 ha)e endea)ored to show the causes res!onsile $or the irth and historical
de)elo!ment o$ religious hallucinations in the human conscience. 0ere it is my !ur!ose to treat
this question o$ the e'istence o$ a God, or o$ the di)ine origin o$ the world and o$ man, solely
$rom the stand!oint o$ its moral and social utility, and 5 shall say only a $ew words, to etter
e'!lain my thought, regarding the theoretical grounds o$ this elie$.
(ll religions, with their gods, their demigods, and their !ro!hets, their messiahs and their saints,
were created y the credulous $ancy o$ men who had not attained the $ull de)elo!ment and $ull
!ossession o$ their $aculties. 2onsequently, the religious hea)en is nothing ut a mirage in which
man, e'alted y ignorance and $aith, disco)ers his own image, ut enlarged and re)ersed + that is,
divini!ed. The history o$ religion, o$ the irth, grandeur, and decline o$ the gods who ha)e
succeeded one another in human elie$, is nothing, there$ore, ut the de)elo!ment o$ the
collecti)e intelligence and conscience o$ mankind. (s $ast as they disco)ered, in the course o$
their historically !rogressi)e ad)ance, either in themsel)es or in e'ternal nature, a !ower, a
quality, or e)en any great de$ect whate)er, they attriuted them to their gods, a$ter ha)ing
e'aggerated and enlarged them eyond measure, a$ter the manner o$ children, y an act o$ their
religious $ancy. Thanks to this modesty and !ious generosity o$ elie)ing and credulous men,
hea)en has grown rich with the s!oils o$ the earth, and, y a necessary consequence, the richer
hea)en ecame, the more wretched ecame humanity and the earth. God once installed, he was
naturally !roclaimed the cause, reason, ariter and asolute dis!oser o$ all things* the world
thence$orth was nothing, God was all% and man, his real creator, a$ter ha)ing unknowingly
e'tracted him $rom the )oid, owed down e$ore him, worshi!!ed him, and a)owed himsel$ his
creature and his sla)e.
2hristianity is !recisely the religion par e"cellence# ecause it e'hiits 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.
God eing e)erything, the real world and man are nothing. God eing truth, /ustice, goodness,
eauty, !ower, and li$e, man is $alsehood, iniquity, e)il, ugliness, im!otence, and death. God
eing master, man is the sla)e. 5nca!ale o$ $inding /ustice, truth, and eternal li$e y his own
e$$ort, he can attain them only through a di)ine re)elation. But whoe)er says re)elation says
re)ealers, messiahs, !ro!hets, !riests, and legislators ins!ired y God himsel$% and these, once
recogni,ed as the re!resentati)es o$ di)inity on earth, as the holy instructors o$ humanity, chosen
y God himsel$ to direct it in the !ath o$ sal)ation, necessarily e'ercise asolute !ower. (ll men
owe them !assi)e and unlimited oedience% $or against the di)ine reason there is no human
reason, and against the /ustice o$ God no terrestrial /ustice holds. Sla)es o$ God, men must also
e sla)es o$ 2hurch and State, in so far as the $tate is consecrated by the Church. This truth
2hristianity, etter than all other religions that e'ist or ha)e e'isted, understood, not e'ce!ting
e)en the old 1riental religions, which included only distinct and !ri)ileged nations, while
2hristianity as!ires to emrace entire humanity% and this truth 3oman 2atholicism, alone among
all the 2hristian sects, has !roclaimed and reali,ed with rigorous logic. That is why 2hristianity
is the asolute religion, the $inal religion% why the (!ostolic and 3oman 2hurch is the only
consistent, legitimate, and di)ine church.
With all due res!ect, then, to the meta!hysicians and religious idealists, !hiloso!hers, !oliticians,
or !oets* %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.
"nless, then, we desire the ensla)ement and degradation o$ mankind, as the .esuits desire it, as
the mmiers# !ietists, or &rotestant <ethodists desire it, we may not, must not make the slightest
concession either to the God o$ theology or to the God o$ meta!hysics. 0e who, in this mystical
al!haet, egins with ( will ine)italy end with F% he who desires to worshi! God must haror
no childish illusions aout the matter, ut ra)ely renounce his lierty and humanity.
5$ God is, man is a sla)e% now, man can and must e $ree% then, God does not e'ist.
5 de$y anyone whomsoe)er to a)oid this circle% now, there$ore, let all choose.
5s it necessary to !oint out to what e'tent and in what manner religions dease and corru!t the
!eo!le? They destroy their reason, the !rinci!al instrument o$ human emanci!ation, and reduce
them to imecility, the essential condition o$ their sla)ery. They dishonor human laor, and make
it a sign and source o$ ser)itude. They kill the idea and sentiment o$ human /ustice, e)er ti!!ing
the alance to the side o$ trium!hant kna)es, !ri)ileged o/ects o$ di)ine indulgence. They kill
human !ride and dignity, !rotecting only the cringing and humle. 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 lood% $or all rest !rinci!ally on the idea o$ sacri$ice + that
is, on the !er!etual immolation o$ humanity to the insatiale )engeance o$ di)inity. 5n this
loody mystery man is always the )ictim, and the !riest + a man also, ut a man !ri)ileged y
grace + is the di)ine e'ecutioner. That e'!lains why the !riests o$ all religions, the est, the most
humane, the gentlest, almost always ha)e at the ottom o$ their hearts + and, i$ not in their hearts,
in their imaginations, in their minds 8and we know the $ear$ul in$luence o$ either on the hearts o$
men9 + something cruel and sanguinary.
6one know all this etter than our illustrious contem!orary idealists. They are learned men, who
know history y heart% and, as they are at the same time li)ing men, great souls !enetrated with a
sincere and !ro$ound lo)e $or the wel$are o$ humanity, they ha)e cursed and randed all these
misdeeds, all these crimes o$ religion with an eloquence un!aralleled. They re/ect with
indignation all solidarity with the God o$ !ositi)e religions and with his re!resentati)es, !ast,
!resent, and on earth.
The God whom they adore, or whom they think they adore, is distinguished $rom the real gods o$
history !recisely in this + that he is not at all a !ositi)e god, de$ined in any way whate)er,
theologically or e)en meta!hysically. 0e is neither the su!reme eing o$ 3oes!ierre and .. ..
3ousseau, nor the !antheistic god o$ S!ino,a, nor e)en the at once immanent, transcendental,
and )ery equi)ocal god o$ 0egel. They take good care not to gi)e him any !ositi)e de$inition
whate)er, $eeling )ery strongly that any de$inition would su/ect him to the dissol)ing !ower o$
criticism. They will not say whether e is a !ersonal or im!ersonal god, whether he created or
did not create the world% they will not e)en s!eak o$ his di)ine !ro)idence. (ll that might
com!romise him. They content themsel)es with saying :God: and nothing more. But, then, what
is their God? 6ot e)en an idea% it is an as!iration.
5t is the generic name o$ all that seems grand, good, eauti$ul, nole, human to them. But why,
then, do they not say, :<an.: (h4 ecause Cing William o$ &russia and 6a!oleon 555, and all
their com!eers are likewise men* which others them )ery much. 3eal humanity !resents a
mi'ture o$ all 5 that is most sulime and eauti$ul with all that is )ilest and most monstrous in the
world. 0ow do they get o)er this? Why, they call one divine and the other bestial# re!resenting
di)inity and animality as two !oles, etween which they !lace humanity. They either will not or
cannot understand that these three terms are really ut one, and that to se!arate them is to destroy
them.
They are not strong on logic, and one might say that they des!ise it. That is what distinguishes
them $rom the !antheistical and deistical meta!hysicians, and gi)es their ideas the character o$ a
!ractical idealism, drawing its ins!iration much less $rom the se)ere de)elo!ment o$ a thought
than $rom the e'!eriences, 5 might almost say the emotions, historical and collecti)e as well as
indi)idual, o$ li$e. This gi)es their !ro!aganda an a!!earance o$ wealth and )ital !ower, ut an
a!!earance only% $or li$e itsel$ ecomes sterile when !araly,ed y a logical contradiction.
This contradiction lies here* they wish God, and they wish humanity. They !ersist in connecting
two terms which, once se!arated, can come together again only to destroy each other. They say
in a single reath* :God and the lierty o$ man,: :God and the dignity, /ustice, equality, $raternity,
!ros!erity o$ men: + regardless o$ the $atal logic y )irtue o$ which, i$ God e'ists, all these things
are condemned to non+e'istence. 7or, i$ God is, he is necessarily the eternal, su!reme, asolute
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 !ros!erity are !ossile $or him. 5n )ain, $lying in the $ace o$ good
sense and all the teachings o$ history, do they re!resent their God as animated y the tenderest
lo)e o$ human lierty* a master, whoe)er he may e and howe)er lieral he may desire to show
himsel$, remains none the less always a master. 0is e'istence necessarily im!lies the sla)ery o$
all that is eneath him. There$ore, i$ God e'isted, only in one way could he ser)e human lierty +
y ceasing to e'ist.
( /ealous lo)er o$ human lierty, and deeming it the asolute condition o$ all that we admire and
res!ect in humanity, 5 re)erse the !hrase o$ ?oltaire, 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)elo!ment o$ this
argument. (nd it seems to me im!ossile that the illustrious men, whose names so celerated and
so /ustly res!ected 5 ha)e cited, should not ha)e een struck y it themsel)es, and should not
ha)e !ercei)ed the contradiction in which they in)ol)e themsel)es in s!eaking o$ God and
human lierty at once. To ha)e disregarded it, they must ha)e considered this inconsistency or
logical license practically necessary to humanityEs well+eing.
&erha!s, too, while s!eaking o$ liberty as something )ery res!ectale and )ery dear in their eyes,
they gi)e the term a meaning quite di$$erent $rom the conce!tion entertained y us, materialists
and 3e)olutionary Socialists. 5ndeed, they ne)er s!eak o$ it without immediately adding another
word, authority + a word and a thing which we detest with all our heart.
What is authority? 5s it the ine)itale !ower o$ the natural laws which mani$est themsel)es in the
necessary concatenation and succession o$ !henomena in the !hysical and social worlds? 5ndeed,
against these laws re)olt is not only $oridden + it is e)en im!ossile. We may misunderstand
them or not know them at all, ut we cannot disoey them% ecause they constitute the asis and
$undamental conditions o$ our e'istence% they en)elo! us, !enetrate us, regulate all our
mo)ements, thoughts, and acts% e)en when we elie)e that we disoey them, we only show their
omni!otence.
#es, we are asolutely the sla)es o$ these laws. But in such sla)ery there is no humiliation, or,
rather, it is not sla)ery at all. 7or sla)ery su!!oses 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 eing, our whole eing, !hysically + intellectually, and morally* we li)e, we
reathe, we act, we think, we wish only through these laws. Without them we are nothing, we are
not. Whence, then, could we deri)e the !ower and the wish to reel against them?
5n his relation to natural laws ut one lierty is !ossile to man + that o$ recogni,ing and
a!!lying them on an e)er+e'tending scale in con$ormity with the o/ect o$ collecti)e and
indi)idual emanci!ation or humani,ation which he !ursues. These laws, once recogni,ed,
e'ercise an authority which is ne)er dis!uted y the mass o$ men. 1ne must, $or instance, e at
ottom either a $ool or a theologian or at least a meta!hysician, /urist, or ourgeois economist to
reel against the law y which twice two make $our. 1ne must ha)e $aith to imagine that $ire will
not urn nor water drown, e'ce!t, indeed, recourse e had to some suter$uge $ounded in its turn
on some other natural law. But these re)olts, or, rather, these attem!ts at or $oolish $ancies o$ an
im!ossile re)olt, are decidedly, the e'ce!tion% $or, in general, it may e said that the mass o$
men, in their daily li)es, acknowledge the go)ernment o$ common sense + that is, o$ the sum o$
the natural laws generally recogni,ed + in an almost asolute $ashion.
The great mis$ortune is that a large numer o$ natural laws, already estalished as such y
science, remain unknown to the masses, thanks to the watch$ulness o$ these tutelary go)ernments
that e'ist, as we know, only $or the good o$ the !eo!le. There is another di$$iculty + namely, that
the ma/or !ortion o$ the natural laws connected with the de)elo!ment o$ human society, which
are quite as necessary, in)ariale, $atal, as the laws that go)ern the !hysical world, ha)e not een
duly estalished and recogni,ed y science itsel$.
1nce they shall ha)e een recogni,ed y science, and then $rom science, y means o$ an
e'tensi)e system o$ !o!ular education and instruction, shall ha)e !assed into the consciousness
o$ all, the question o$ lierty will e entirely sol)ed. The most stuorn authorities must admit
that then there will e no need either o$ !olitical organi,ation or direction or legislation, three
things which, whether they emanate $rom the will o$ the so)ereign or $rom the )ote o$ a
!arliament elected y uni)ersal su$$rage, and e)en should they con$orm to the system o$ natural
laws + which has ne)er een the case and ne)er will e the case + are always equally $atal and
hostile to the lierty o$ the masses $rom the )ery $act that they im!ose u!on them a system o$
e'ternal and there$ore des!otic laws.
The lierty o$ man consists solely in this* that he oeys natural laws ecause he has himself
recogni,ed them as such, and not ecause they ha)e een e'ternally im!osed u!on him y any
e'trinsic will whate)er, di)ine or human, collecti)e or indi)idual.
Su!!ose a learned academy, com!osed o$ the most illustrious re!resentati)es o$ science% su!!ose
this academy charged with legislation $or and the organi,ation o$ society, and that, ins!ired only
y the !urest lo)e o$ truth, it $rames none ut laws in asolute harmony with the latest
disco)eries o$ science. Well, 5 maintain, $or my !art, that such legislation and such organi,ation
would e a monstrosity, and that $or two reasons* $irst, that human science is always and
necessarily im!er$ect, and that, com!aring what it has disco)ered with what remains to e
disco)ered, we may say that it is still in its cradle. So that were we to try to $orce the !ractical
li$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$$er martyrdom on a ed
o$ &rocrustes, which would soon end y dislocating and sti$ling them, li$e e)er remaining an
in$initely greater thing than science.
The second reason is this* a society which should oey legislation emanating $rom a scienti$ic
academy, not ecause it understood itsel$ the rational character o$ this legislation 8in which case
the e'istence o$ the academy would ecome useless9, ut ecause this legislation, emanating
$rom the academy, was im!osed in the name o$ a science which it )enerated without
com!rehending + such a society would e a society, not o$ men, ut o$ rutes. 5t would e a
second edition o$ those missions in &araguay which sumitted so long to the go)ernment o$ the
.esuits. 5t would surely and ra!idly descend to the lowest stage o$ idiocy.
But there is still a third reason which would render such a go)ernment im!ossile + namely that a
scienti$ic academy in)ested with a so)ereignty, so to s!eak, asolute, e)en i$ it were com!osed
o$ the most illustrious men, would in$allily and soon end in its own moral and intellectual
corru!tion. -)en today, with the $ew !ri)ileges allowed them, such is the history o$ all
academies. The greatest scienti$ic genius, $rom the moment that he ecomes an academician, an
o$$icially licensed savant# ine)italy la!ses into sluggishness. 0e loses his s!ontaneity, his
re)olutionary hardihood, and that troulesome and sa)age energy characteristic o$ the grandest
geniuses, e)er called to destroy old tottering worlds and lay the $oundations o$ new. 0e
undoutedly gains in !oliteness, in utilitarian and !ractical wisdom, what he loses in !ower o$
thought. 5n a word, he ecomes corru!ted.
5t is the characteristic o$ !ri)ilege and o$ e)ery !ri)ileged !osition to kill the mind and heart o$
men. The !ri)ileged man, whether !olitically or economically, is a man de!ra)ed in mind and
heart. That is a social law which admits o$ no e'ce!tion, and is as a!!licale to entire nations as
to classes, cor!orations, and indi)iduals. 5t is the law o$ equality, the su!reme condition o$ lierty
and humanity. The !rinci!al o/ect o$ this treatise is !recisely to demonstrate this truth in all the
mani$estations o$ human li$e.
( scienti$ic ody to which had een con$ided the go)ernment o$ society would soon end y
de)oting itsel$ no longer to science at all, ut to quite another a$$air% and that a$$air, as in the case
o$ all estalished !owers, would e its own eternal !er!etuation y rendering the society
con$ided to its care e)er more stu!id and consequently more in need o$ its go)ernment and
direction.
But that which is true o$ scienti$ic academies is also true o$ all constituent and legislati)e
assemlies, e)en those chosen y uni)ersal su$$rage. 5n the latter case they may renew their
com!osition, it is true, ut this does not !re)ent the $ormation in a $ew yearsE time o$ a ody o$
!oliticians, !ri)ileged in $act though not in law, who, de)oting themsel)es e'clusi)ely to the
direction o$ the !ulic a$$airs o$ a country, $inally $orm a sort o$ !olitical aristocracy or oligarchy.
Witness the "nited States o$ (merica and Swit,erland.
2onsequently, no e'ternal legislation and no authority + one, $or that matter, eing inse!arale
$rom the other, and oth tending to the ser)itude o$ society and the degradation o$ the legislators
themsel)es.
Boes it $ollow that 5 re/ect all authority? 7ar $rom me such a thought. 5n the matter o$ oots, 5
re$er to the authority o$ the ootmaker% concerning houses, canals, or railroads, 5 consult that o$
the architect or engineer. 7or such or such s!ecial knowledge 5 a!!ly to such or such a savant.
But 5 allow neither the ootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to im!ose his authority u!on
me. 5 listen to them $reely and with all the res!ect merited y their intelligence, their character,
their knowledge, reser)ing always my incontestale right o$ criticism censure. 5 do not content
mysel$ with consulting authority in any s!ecial ranch% 5 consult se)eral% 5 com!are their
o!inions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But 5 recogni,e no in$allile
authority, e)en in s!ecial questions% consequently, whate)er res!ect 5 may ha)e $or the honesty
and the sincerity o$ such or such an indi)idual, 5 ha)e no asolute $aith in any !erson. Such a
$aith would e $atal to my reason, to my lierty, and e)en to the success o$ my undertakings% it
would immediately trans$orm me into a stu!id sla)e, an instrument o$ the will and interests o$
others.
5$ 5 ow e$ore the authority o$ the s!ecialists and a)ow my readiness to $ollow, to a certain
e'tent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and e)en their directions, it is
ecause their authority is im!osed u!on me y no one, neither y men nor y God. 1therwise 5
would re!el them with horror, and id the de)il take their counsels, their directions, and their
ser)ices, certain that they would make me !ay, y the loss o$ my lierty and sel$+res!ect, $or such
scra!s o$ truth, wra!!ed in a multitude o$ lies, as they might gi)e me.
5 ow e$ore the authority o$ s!ecial men ecause it is im!osed u!on me y my own reason. 5 am
conscious o$ my inaility to gras!, in all its details and !ositi)e de)elo!ments, any )ery large
!ortion o$ human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not e equal to a com!rehension o$
the whole. Thence results, $or science as well as $or industry, the necessity o$ the di)ision and
association o$ laor. 5 recei)e and 5 gi)e + such is human li$e. -ach directs and is directed in his
turn. There$ore there is no $i'ed and constant authority, ut a continual e'change o$ mutual,
tem!orary, and, ao)e all, )oluntary authority and suordination.
This same reason $orids me, then, to recogni,e a $i'ed, constant, and uni)ersal authority,
ecause there is no uni)ersal man, no man ca!ale o$ gras!ing in that wealth o$ detail, without
which the a!!lication o$ science to li$e is im!ossile, all the sciences, all the ranches o$ social
li$e. (nd i$ such uni)ersality could e)er e reali,ed in a single man, and i$ e wished to take
ad)antage thereo$ to im!ose his authority u!on us, it would e necessary to dri)e this man out o$
society, ecause his authority would ine)italy reduce all the others to sla)ery and imecility. 5
do not think that society ought to maltreat men o$ genius as it has done hitherto% ut neither do 5
think it should indulge them too $ar, still less accord them any !ri)ileges or e'clusi)e rights
whatsoe)er% and that $or three reasons* $irst, ecause it would o$ten mistake a charlatan $or a man
o$ genius% second, ecause, through such a system o$ !ri)ileges, it might trans$orm into a
charlatan e)en a real man o$ genius, demorali,e him, and degrade him% and, $inally, ecause it
would estalish a master o)er itsel$.
To sum u!. We recogni,e, then, the asolute authority o$ science, ecause the sole o/ect o$
science is the mental re!roduction, as well+considered and systematic as !ossile, o$ the natural
laws inherent in the material, intellectual, and moral li$e o$ oth the !hysical and the social
worlds, these two worlds constituting, in $act, ut one and the same natural world. 1utside o$ this
only legitimate authority, legitimate ecause rational and in harmony with human lierty, we
declare all other authorities $alse, aritrary and $atal.
We recogni,e the asolute authority o$ science, ut we re/ect the in$alliility and uni)ersality o$
the savant. 5n our church + i$ 5 may e !ermitted to use $or a moment an e'!ression which 5 so
detest* 2hurch and State are my two b'tes noires + in our church, as in the &rotestant church, we
ha)e a chie$, an in)isile 2hrist, science% and, like the &rotestants, more logical e)en than the
&rotestants, we will su$$er neither !o!e, nor council, nor concla)es o$ in$allile cardinals, nor
isho!s, nor e)en !riests. 1ur 2hrist di$$ers $rom the &rotestant and 2hristian 2hrist in this + that
the latter is a !ersonal eing, ours im!ersonal% the 2hristian 2hrist, already com!leted in an
eternal !ast, !resents himsel$ as a !er$ect eing, while the com!letion and !er$ection o$ our
2hrist, science, are e)er in the $uture* which is equi)alent to saying that they will ne)er e
reali,ed. There$ore, in recogni,ing absolute science as the only asolute authority, we in no way
com!romise our lierty.
5 mean y the words :asolute science,: which would re!roduce ideally, to its $ullest e'tent and
in all its in$inite detail, the uni)erse, the system or coordination o$ all the natural laws mani$ested
y the incessant de)elo!ment o$ the world. 5t is e)ident that such a science, the sulime o/ect o$
all the e$$orts o$ the human mind, will ne)er e $ully and asolutely reali,ed. 1ur 2hrist, then,
will remain eternally un$inished, which must consideraly take down the !ride o$ his licensed
re!resentati)es among us. (gainst that God the Son in whose name they assume to im!ose u!on
us their insolent and !edantic authority, we a!!eal to God the 7ather, who is the real world, real
li$e, o$ which he 8the Son9 is only a too im!er$ect e'!ression, whilst we real eings, li)ing,
working, struggling, lo)ing, as!iring, en/oying, and su$$ering, are its immediate re!resentati)es.
But, while re/ecting the asolute, uni)ersal, and in$allile authority o$ men o$ science, we
willingly ow e$ore the res!ectale, although relati)e, quite tem!orary, and )ery restricted
authority o$ the re!resentati)es o$ s!ecial sciences, asking nothing etter than to consult them y
turns, and )ery grate$ul $or such !recious in$ormation as they may e'tend to us, on condition o$
their willingness to recei)e $rom us on occasions when, and concerning matters aout which, we
are more learned than they. 5n general, we ask nothing etter than to see men endowed with great
knowledge, great e'!erience, great minds, and, ao)e all, great hearts, e'ercise o)er us a natural
and legitimate in$luence, $reely acce!ted, and ne)er im!osed in the name o$ any o$$icial authority
whatsoe)er, celestial or terrestrial. We acce!t all natural authorities and all in$luences o$ $act, ut
none o$ right% $or e)ery authority or e)ery in$luence o$ right, o$$icially im!osed as such,
ecoming directly an o!!ression and a $alsehood, would ine)italy im!ose u!on us, as 5 elie)e 5
ha)e su$$iciently shown, sla)ery and asurdity.
5n a word, we re/ect all legislation, all authority, and all !ri)ileged, licensed, o$$icial, and legal
in$luence, e)en though arising $rom uni)ersal su$$rage, con)inced that it can turn only to the
ad)antage o$ a dominant minority o$ e'!loiters against the interests o$ the immense ma/ority in
su/ection to them.
This is the sense in which we are really (narchists.
The modern idealists understand authority in quite a di$$erent way. (lthough $ree $rom the
traditional su!erstitions o$ all the e'isting !ositi)e religions, they ne)ertheless attach to this idea
o$ authority a di)ine, an asolute meaning. This authority is not that o$ a truth miraculously
re)ealed, nor that o$ a truth rigorously and scienti$ically demonstrated. They ase it to a slight
e'tent u!on quasi+!hiloso!hical reasoning, and to a large e'tent also on sentiment, ideally,
astractly !oetical. Their religion is, as it were, a last attem!t to di)inise all that constitutes
humanity in men.
This is /ust the o!!osite o$ the work that we are doing. 1n ehal$ o$ human lierty, dignity and
!ros!erity, we elie)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 roer, $inally unmasked, the grandest, $inest and nolest o$
humanityEs !ossessions. 5t is now the $reethinkerEs turn to !illage hea)en y their audacious !iety
and scienti$ic analysis.
The idealists undoutedly elie)e that human ideas and deeds, in order to e'ercise greater
authority among men, must e in)ested with a di)ine sanction. 0ow is this sanction mani$ested?
6ot y a miracle, as in the !ositi)e religions, ut y the )ery grandeur o$ sanctity o$ the ideas
and deeds* whate)er is grand, whate)er is eauti$ul, whate)er is nole, whate)er is /ust, is
considered di)ine. 5n this new religious cult e)ery man ins!ired y these ideas, y these deeds,
ecomes a !riest, directly consecrated y God himsel$. (nd the !roo$? 0e needs none eyond the
)ery grandeur o$ the ideas which he e'!resses and the deeds which he !er$orms. These are so
holy that they can ha)e een ins!ired only y God.
Such, in so $ew words, is their whole !hiloso!hy* a !hiloso!hy o$ sentiments, not o$ real
thoughts, a sort o$ meta!hysical !ietism. This seems harmless, ut it is not so at all, and the )ery
!recise, )ery narrow and )ery arren doctrine hidden under the intangile )agueness o$ these
!oetic $orms leads to the same disastrous results that all the !ositi)e religions lead to + namely,
the most com!lete negation o$ human lierty and dignity.
To !roclaim as di)ine all that is grand, /ust, nole, and eauti$ul in humanity is to tacitly admit
that humanity o$ itsel$ would ha)e een unale to !roduce it + that is, that, aandoned to itsel$, its
own nature is miserale, iniquitous, ase, and ugly. Thus we come ack to the essence o$ all
religion + in other words, to the dis!aragement o$ humanity $or the greater glory o$ di)inity. (nd
$rom the moment that the natural in$eriority o$ man and his $undamental inca!acity to rise y his
own e$$ort, unaided y any di)ine ins!iration, to the com!rehension o$ /ust and true ideas, are
admitted, it ecomes necessary to admit also all the theological, !olitical, and social
consequences o$ the !ositi)e religions. 7rom the moment that God, the !er$ect and su!reme
eing, is !osited $ace to $ace with humanity, di)ine mediators, the elect, the ins!ired o$ God
s!ring $rom the earth to enlighten, direct, and go)ern in his name the human race.
<ay we not su!!ose that all men are equally ins!ired y God? Then, surely, there is no $urther
use $or mediators. But this su!!osition is im!ossile, ecause it is too clearly contradicted y the
$acts. 5t would com!el us to attriute to di)ine ins!iration all the asurdities and errors which
a!!ear, and all the horrors, $ollies, ase deeds, and cowardly actions which are committed, in the
world. But !erha!s, then, only a $ew men are di)inely ins!ired, the great men o$ history, the
virtuous geniuses, as the illustrious 5talian citi,en and !ro!het, Giuse!!e <a,,ini, called them.
5mmediately ins!ired y God himsel$ and su!!orted u!on uni)ersal consent e'!ressed y
!o!ular su$$rage + (io e )opolo% + such as these should e called to the go)ernment o$ human
societies.@>A
But here we are again $allen ack under the yoke o$ 2hurch and State. 5t is true that in this new
organi,ation, indeted $or its e'istence, like all the old !olitical organisations, to the grace of
God, ut su!!orted this time + at least so $ar as $orm is concerned, as a necessary concession to
the s!irit o$ modern times, and /ust as in the !reamles o$ the im!erial decrees o$ 6a!oleon 555. +
on the 8!retended9 will of the people, the 2hurch will no longer call itsel$ 2hurch% it will call
itsel$ School. What matters it? 1n the enches o$ this School will e seated not children only%
there will e $ound the eternal minor, the !u!il con$essedly $ore)er incom!etent to !ass his
e'aminations, rise to the knowledge o$ his teachers, and dis!ense with their disci!line + the
!eo!le.@GA
The State will no longer call itsel$ <onarchy% it will call itsel$ 3e!ulic* ut it will e none the
less the State + that is, a tutelage o$$icially and regularly estalished y a minority o$ com!etent
men, men of virtuous genius or talent, who will watch and guide the conduct o$ this great,
incorrigile, and terrile child, the !eo!le. The !ro$essors o$ the School and the $unctionaries o$
the State will call themsel)es re!ulicans% ut they will e none the less tutors, she!herds, and
the !eo!le will remain what they ha)e een hitherto $rom all eternity, a $lock. Beware o$
shearers, $or where there is a $lock there necessarily must e she!herds also to shear and de)our
it.
The !eo!le, in this system, will e the !er!etual scholar and !u!il. 5n s!ite o$ its so)ereignty,
wholly $ictitious, it will continue to ser)e as the instrument o$ thoughts, wills, and consequently
interests not its own. Between this situation and what we call lierty, the only real lierty, there is
an ayss. 5t will e the old o!!ression and old sla)ery under new $orms% and where there is
sla)ery there is misery, rutishness, real social materialism, among the !ri)ileged classes as well
as among the masses.
*n defying human things the idealists always end in the triumph of a brutal materialism. (nd this
$or a )ery sim!le reason* the di)ine e)a!orates and rises to its own country, hea)en, while the
rutal alone remains actually on earth.
#es, the necessary consequence o$ theoretical idealism is !ractically the most rutal materialism%
not, undoutedly, among those who sincerely !reach it + the usual result as $ar as they are
concerned eing that they are constrained to see all their e$$orts struck with sterility + ut among
those who try to realise their !rece!ts in li$e, and in all society so $ar as it allows itsel$ to e
dominated y idealistic doctrines.
To demonstrate this general $act, which may a!!ear strange at $irst, ut which e'!lains itsel$
naturally enough u!on $urther re$lection, historical !roo$s are not lacking.
2om!are the last two ci)ilisations o$ the ancient world + the Greek and the 3oman. Which is the
most materialistic, the most natural, in its !oint o$ de!arture, and the most humanly ideal in its
results? "ndoutedly the Greek ci)ilisation. Which on the contrary, is the most astractly ideal in
its !oint o$ de!arture + sacri$icing the material lierty o$ the man to the ideal lierty o$ the
citi,en, re!resented y the astraction o$ /udicial law, and the natural de)elo!ment o$ human
society to the astraction o$ the State + and which ecame ne)ertheless the most rutal in its
consequences? The 3oman ci)ilisation, certainly. 5t is true that the Greek ci)ilisation, like all the
ancient ci)ilisations, including that o$ 3ome, was e'clusi)ely national and ased on sla)ery. But,
in s!ite o$ these two immense de$ects, the $ormer none the less concei)ed and realised the idea o$
humanity% it ennoled and really idealised the li$e o$ men% it trans$ormed human herds into $ree
associations o$ $ree men% it created through lierty the sciences, the arts, a !oetry, an immortal
!hiloso!hy, and the !rimary conce!ts o$ human res!ect. With !olitical and social lierty, it
created $ree thought. (t the close o$ the <iddle (ges, during the !eriod o$ the 3enaissance, the
$act that some Greek emigrants rought a $ew o$ those immortal ooks into 5taly su$$iced to
resuscitate li$e, lierty, thought, humanity, uried in the dark dungeon o$ 2atholicism. 0uman
emanci!ation, that is the name o$ the Greek ci)ilisation. (nd the name o$ the 3oman
ci)ilisation? 2onquest, with all its rutal consequences. (nd its last word? The omni!otence o$
the 2aesars. Which means the degradation and ensla)ement o$ nations and o$ men.
Today e)en, what is it that kills, what is it that crushes rutally, materially, in all -uro!ean
countries, lierty and humanity? 5t is the trium!h o$ the 2aesarian or 3oman !rinci!le.
2om!are now two modern ci)ilisations + the 5talian and the German. The $irst undoutedly
re!resents, in its general character, materialism% the second, on the contrary, re!resents idealism
in its most astract, most !ure, and most transcendental $orm. ;et us see what are the !ractical
$ruits o$ the one and the other.
5taly has already rendered immense ser)ices to the cause o$ human emanci!ation. She was the
$irst to resuscitate and widely a!!ly the !rinci!le o$ lierty in -uro!e, and to restore to humanity
its titles to noility* industry, commerce, !oetry, the arts, the !ositi)e sciences, and $ree thought.
2rushed since y three centuries o$ im!erial and !a!al des!otism, and dragged in the mud y her
go)erning ourgeoisie, she rea!!ears today, it is true, in a )ery degraded condition in com!arison
with what she once was. (nd yet how much she di$$ers $rom Germany4 5n 5taly, in s!ite o$ this
decline + tem!orary let us ho!e + one may li)e and reathe humanly, surrounded y a !eo!le
which seems to e orn $or lierty. 5taly, e)en ourgeois 5taly, can !oint with !ride to men like
<a,,ini and Garialdi. .5n Germany one reathes the atmos!here o$ an immense !olitical and
social sla)ery, !hiloso!hically e'!lained and acce!ted y a great !eo!le with delierate
resignation and $ree will. 0er heroes + 5 s!eak always o$ !resent Germany, not o$ the Germany o$
the $uture% o$ aristocratic, ureaucratic, !olitical and ourgeoisie Germany, not o$ the Germany
o$ the prol+taires + her heroes are quite the o!!osite o$ <a,,ini and Garialdi* they are William
5., that $erocious and ingenuous re!resentati)e o$ the &rotestant God, <essrs, Bismarck and
<oltke, Generals <anteu$$el and Werder. 5n all her international relations Germany, $rom the
eginning o$ her e'istence, has een slowly, systematically in)ading, conquering, e)er ready to
e'tend her own )oluntary ensla)ement into the territory o$ her neighours% and, since her
de$initi)e estalishment as a unitary !ower, she has ecome a menace, a danger to the lierty o$
entire -uro!e. Today Germany is ser)ility rutal and trium!hant.
To show how theoretical idealism incessantly and ine)italy changes into !ractical materialism,
one needs only to cite the e'am!le o$ all the 2hristian 2hurches, and, naturally, $irst o$ all, that
o$ the (!ostolic and 3oman 2hurch. What is there more sulime, in the ideal sense, more
disinterested, more se!arate $rom all the interests o$ this earth, than the doctrine o$ 2hrist
!reached y that 2hurch? (nd what is there more rutally materialistic than the constant !ractice
o$ that same 2hurch since the eighth century, $rom which dates her de$initi)e estalishment as a
!ower? What has een and still is the !rinci!al o/ect o$ all her contests with the so)ereigns o$
-uro!e? 0er tem!oral goods, her re)enues $irst, and then her tem!oral !ower, her !olitical
!ri)ileges. We must do her the /ustice to acknowledge that she was the $irst to disco)er, in
modern history, this incontestale ut scarcely 2hristian truth that wealth and !ower, the
economic e'!loitation and the !olitical o!!ression o$ the masses, are the two inse!arale terms
o$ the reign o$ di)ine ideality on earth* wealth consolidating and augmenting !ower, !ower e)er
disco)ering and creating new sources o$ wealth, and oth assuring, etter than the martyrdom
and $aith o$ the a!ostles, etter than di)ine grace, the success o$ the 2hristian !ro!agandism.
This is a historical truth, and the &rotestant 2hurches do not $ail to recognise it either. 5 s!eak, o$
course, o$ the inde!endent churches o$ -ngland, (merica, and Swit,erland, not o$ the su/ected
churches o$ Germany. The latter ha)e no initiati)e o$ their own% they do what their masters, their
tem!oral so)ereigns, who are at the same time their s!iritual chie$tains, order them to do, 5t is
well known that the &rotestant !ro!agandism, es!ecially in -ngland and (merica, is )ery
intimately connected with the !ro!agandism o$ the material, commercial interests o$ those two
great nations% and it is known also that the o/ects o$ the latter !ro!agandism is not at all the
enrichment and material !ros!erity o$ the countries into which it !enetrates in com!any with the
Word o$ God, ut rather the e'!loitation o$ those countries with a )iew to the enrichment and
material !ros!erity o$ certain classes, which in their own country are )ery co)etous and )ery
!ious at the same time.
5n a word, it is not at all di$$icult to !ro)e, history in hand, that the 2hurch, that all the 2hurches,
2hristian and non+2hristian, y the side o$ their s!iritualistic !ro!agandism, and !roaly to
accelerate and consolidate the success thereo$, ha)e ne)er neglected to organise themsel)es into
great cor!orations $or the economic e'!loitation o$ the masses under the !rotection and with the
direct and s!ecial lessing o$ some di)inity or other% that all the States, which originally, as we
know, with all their !olitical and /udicial institutions and their dominant and !ri)ileged classes
ha)e een only tem!oral ranches o$ these )arious 2hurches ha)e likewise had !rinci!ally in
)iew this same e'!loitation $or the ene$it o$ lay minorities indirectly sanctioned y the 2hurch%
$inally and in general, that the action o$ the good God and o$ all the di)ine idealities on earth has
ended at last, always and e)erywhere, in $ounding the !ros!erous materialism o$ the $ew o)er the
$anatical and constantly $amishing idealism o$ the masses.
We ha)e a new !roo$ o$ this in what we see today. With the e'ce!tion o$ the great hearts and
great minds whom 5 ha)e e$ore re$erred to as misled, who are today the most ostinate
de$enders o$ idealism? 5n the $irst !laces all the so)ereign courts. 5n 7rance, until lately,
6a!oleon 555. and his wi$e, <adame -ugHnie% all their $ormer ministers, courtiers, and e'+
marshals, $rom 3ouher and Ba,aine to 7leury and &iHtri% the men and women o$ this im!erial
world, who ha)e so com!letely idealised and sa)ed 7rance% their /ournalists and their savants +
the 2ssagnacs, the Girardins, the Bu)ernois, the ?euillots, the ;e)erriers, the Bumas% the lack
!halan' o$ .esuits and .esuitesses in e)ery gar% the whole u!!er and middle ourgeoisie o$
7rance% the doctrinaire lierals, and the lierals without doctrine + the Gui,ots, the Thiers, the
.ules 7a)res, the &elletans, and the .ules Simons, all ostinate de$enders o$ the ourgeoisie
e'!loitation. 5n &russia, in Germany, William 5., the !resent royal demonstrator o$ the good God
on earth% all his generals, all his o$$icers, &omeranian and other% all his army, which, strong in its
religious $aith, has /ust conquered 7rance in that ideal way we know so well. 5n 3ussia, the 2,ar
and his court% the <oura)ie$$s and the Bergs, all the utchers and !ious !roselyters o$ &oland.
-)erywhere, in short, religious or !hiloso!hical idealism, the one eing ut the more or less $ree
translation o$ the other, ser)es today as the $lag o$ material, loody, and rutal $orce, o$
shameless material e'!loitation% while, on the contrary, the $lag o$ theoretical materialism, the
red $lag o$ economic equality and social /ustice, is raised y the !ractical idealism o$ the
o!!ressed and $amishing masses, tending to realise the greatest lierty and the human right o$
each in the $raternity o$ all men on the earth.
Who are the real idealists + the idealists not o$ astraction, ut o$ li$e, not o$ hea)en, ut o$ earth
+ and who are the materialists?
5t 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 !er$orce in the ranks o$ the o!!ressors and e'!loiters o$ the
masses. These are two great reasons which, it would seem, should e su$$icient to dri)e e)ery
great mind, e)ery great heart, $rom idealism. 0ow does it ha!!en that our illustrious
contem!orary idealists, who certainly lack 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 ha!!en that they !ersist in
remaining among the re!resentati)es o$ a doctrine hence$orth condemned and dishonoured?
They must e in$luenced y a )ery !ower$ul moti)e. 5t cannot e logic or science, since logic
and science ha)e !ronounced their )erdict against the idealistic doctrine. 6o more can it e
!ersonal interests, since these men are in$initely ao)e e)erything o$ that sort. 5t must, then, e a
!ower$ul moral moti)e. Which? There can e ut one. These illustrious men think, no dout, that
idealistic theories or elie$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 easts.
(nd i$ the truth were /ust the o!!osite4
-)ery de)elo!ment, 5 ha)e said, im!lies the negation o$ its !oint o$ de!arture. The asis or !oint
o$ de!arture, according to the materialistic school, eing material, the negation must e
necessarily ideal. Starting $rom the totality o$ the real world, or $rom what is astractly called
matter, it logically arri)es at the real idealisation + that is, at the humanisation, at the $ull and
com!lete emanci!ation o$ society. )er contra% and $or the same reason, the asis and !oint o$
de!arture o$ the idealistic school eing ideal, it arri)es necessarily at the materialisation o$
society, at the organi,ation o$ a rutal des!otism and an iniquitous and ignole e'!loitation,
under the $orm o$ 2hurch and State. The historical de)elo!ment o$ man according to the
materialistic school, is a !rogressi)e ascension% in the idealistic system it can e nothing ut a
continuous $all.
Whate)er human question we may desire to consider, we always $ind this same essential
contradiction etween the two schools. Thus, as 5 ha)e already oser)ed, materialism starts $rom
animality to estalish humanity% idealism starts $rom di)inity to estalish sla)ery and condemn
the masses to an endless animality. <aterialism denies $ree will and ends in the estalishment o$
lierty% idealism, in the name o$ human dignity, !roclaims $ree will, and on the ruins o$ e)ery
lierty $ounds authority. <aterialism re/ects the !rinci!le o$ authority, ecause it rightly
considers it as the corollary o$ animality, and ecause, on the contrary, the trium!h o$ humanity,
the o/ect and chie$ signi$icance o$ history, can e realised only through lierty. 5n a word, you
will always $ind the idealists in the )ery act o$ !ractical materialism, while you will see the
materialists !ursuing and realising the most grandly ideal as!irations and thoughts.
0istory, in the system o$ the idealists, as 5 ha)e said, can e nothing ut a continuous $all. They
egin y a terrile $all, $rom which they ne)er reco)er + y the salto mortale% $rom the sulime
regions o$ !ure and asolute idea into matter. (nd into what kind o$ matter 4 6ot into the matter
which is eternally acti)e and moile, $ull o$ !ro!erties and $orces, o$ li$e and intelligence, as we
see it in the real world% ut into astract matter, im!o)erished and reduced to asolute misery y
the regular looting o$ these &russians o$ thought, the theologians and meta!hysicians, who ha)e
stri!!ed it o$ e)erything to gi)e e)erything to their em!eror, to their God% into the matter which,
de!ri)ed o$ all action and mo)ement o$ its own, re!resents, in o!!osition to the di)ine idea,
nothing ut asolute stu!idity, im!enetraility, inertia and immoility.
The $all is so terrile that di)inity, the di)ine !erson or idea, is $lattened out, loses consciousness
o$ itsel$, and ne)er more reco)ers it. (nd in this des!erate situation it is still $orced to work
miracles 4 7or $rom the moment that matter ecomes inert, e)ery mo)ement that takes !lace in
the world, e)en the most material, is a miracle, can result only $rom a !ro)idential inter)ention,
$rom the action o$ God u!on matter. (nd there this !oor Bi)inity, degraded and hal$ annihilated
y its $all, lies some thousands o$ centuries in this swoon, then awakens slowly, in )ain
endea)ouring to gras! some )ague memory o$ itsel$, and e)ery mo)e that it makes in this
direction u!on matter ecomes a creation, a new $ormation, a new miracle. 5n this way it !asses
through all degrees o$ materiality and estiality + $irst, gas, sim!le or com!ound chemical
sustance, mineral, it then s!reads o)er the earth as )egetale and animal organi,ation till it
concentrates itsel$ in man. 0ere it would seem as i$ it must ecome itsel$ again, $or it lights in
e)ery human eing an angelic s!ark, a !article o$ its own di)ine eing, the immortal soul.
0ow did it manage to lodge a thing asolutely immaterial in a thing asolutely material% how can
the ody contain, enclose, limit, !aralyse !ure s!irit? This, again, is one o$ those questions which
$aith alone, that !assionate and stu!id a$$irmation o$ the asurd, can sol)e. 5t is the greatest o$
miracles. 0ere, howe)er, we ha)e only to estalish the e$$ects, the !ractical consequences o$ this
miracle.
($ter thousands o$ centuries o$ )ain e$$orts to come ack to itsel$, Bi)inity, lost and scattered in
the matter which it animates and sets in motion, $inds a !oint o$ su!!ort, a sort o$ $ocus $or sel$+
concentration. This $ocus is man his immortal soul singularly im!risoned in a mortal ody. But
each man considered indi)idually is in$initely too limited, too small, to enclose the di)ine
immensity% it can contain only a )ery small !article, immortal like the whole, ut in$initely
smaller than the whole. 5t $ollows that the di)ine eing, the asolutely immaterial eing, mind, is
di)isile like matter. (nother mystery whose solution must e le$t to $aith.
5$ God entire could $ind lodgment in each man, then each man would e God. We should ha)e an
immense quantity o$ Gods, each limited y all the others and yet none the less in$inite + a
contradiction which would im!ly a mutual destruction o$ men, an im!ossiility o$ the e'istence
o$ more than one. (s $or the !articles, that is another matter% nothing more rational, indeed, than
that one !article should e limited y another and e smaller than the whole. 1nly, here another
contradiction con$ronts us. To e limited, to e greater and smaller are attriutes o$ matter, not o$
mind. (ccording to the materialists, it is true, mind is only the working o$ the wholly material
organism o$ man, and the greatness or smallness o$ mind de!ends asolutely on the greater or
less material !er$ection o$ the human organism. But these same attriutes o$ relati)e limitation
and grandeur cannot e attriuted to mind as the idealists concei)e it, asolutely immaterial
mind, mind e'isting inde!endent o$ matter. There can e neither greater nor smaller nor any limit
among minds, $or there is only one mind + God. To add that the in$initely small and limited
!articles which constitute human souls are at the same time immortal is to carry the contradiction
to a clima'. But this is a question o$ $aith. ;et us !ass on.
0ere then we ha)e Bi)inity torn u! and lodged, in in$initely small !articles, in an immense
numer o$ eings o$ all se'es, ages, races, and colours. This is an e'cessi)ely incon)enient and
unha!!y situation, $or the di)ine !articles are so little acquainted with each other at the outset o$
their human e'istence that they egin y de)ouring each other. <oreo)er, in the midst o$ this
state o$ ararism and wholly animal rutality, these di)ine !articles, human souls, retain as it
were a )ague rememrance o$ their !rimiti)e di)inity, and are irresistily drawn towards their
whole% they seek each other, they seek their whole. 5t is Bi)inity itsel$, scattered and lost in the
natural world, which looks $or itsel$ in men, and it is so demolished y this multitude o$ human
!risons in which it $inds itsel$ strewn, that, in looking $or itsel$, it commits $olly a$ter $olly.
Beginning with $etishism, it searches $or and adores itsel$, now in a stone, now in a !iece o$
wood, now in a rag. 5t is quite likely that it would ne)er ha)e succeeded in getting out o$ the rag,
i$ the other% di)inity which was not allowed to $all into matter and which is ke!t in a state o$ !ure
s!irit in the sulime heights o$ the asolute ideal, or in the celestial regions, had not had !ity on
it.
0ere is a new mystery + that o$ Bi)inity di)iding itsel$ into two hal)es, oth equally in$inite, o$
which one + God the 7ather + stays in the !urely immaterial regions, and the other + God the Son
+ $alls into matter. We shall see directly, etween these two Bi)inities se!arated $rom each other,
continuous relations estalished, $rom ao)e to elow and $rom elow to ao)e% and these
relations, considered as a single eternal and constant act, will constitute the 0oly Ghost. Such, in
its )eritale theological and meta!hysical meaning, is the great, the terrile mystery o$ the
2hristian Trinity.
But let us lose no time in aandoning these heights to see what is going on u!on earth.
God the 7ather, seeing $rom the height o$ his eternal s!lendour that the !oor God the Son,
$lattened out and astounded y his $all, is so !lunged and lost in matter that e)en ha)ing reached
human state he has not yet reco)ered himsel$, decides to come to his aid. 7rom this immense
numer o$ !articles at once immortal, di)ine, and in$initely small, in which God the Son has
disseminated himsel$ so thoroughly that he does not know himsel$, God the 7ather chooses those
most !leasing to him, !icks his ins!ired !ersons, his !ro!hets, his :men o$ )irtuous genius,: the
great ene$actors and legislators o$ humanity* Foroaster, Buddha, <oses, 2on$ucius, ;ycurgus,
Solon, Socrates, the di)ine &lato, and ao)e all .esus 2hrist, the com!lete realisation o$ God the
Son, at last collected and concentrated in a single human !erson% all the a!ostles, Saint &eter,
Saint &aul, Saint .ohn e$ore all, 2onstantine the Great, <ahomet, then 2harlemagne, Gregory
?55 Bante, and, according to some, ;uther also, ?oltaire and 3ousseau, 3oes!ierre and Banton,
and many other great and holy historical !ersonages, all o$ whose names it is im!ossile to
reca!itulate, ut among whom 5, as a 3ussian, eg that Saint 6icholas may not e $orgotten.
Then we ha)e reached at last the mani$estation o$ God u!on earth. But immediately God
a!!ears, man is reduced to nothing. 5t will e said that he is not reduced to nothing, since he is
himsel$ a !article o$ God. &ardon me4 5 admit that a !article o$ a de$inite, limited whole, howe)er
small it e, is a quantity, a !ositi)e greatness. But a !article o$ the in$initely great, com!ared with
it, is necessarily in$initely small, <ulti!ly milliards o$ milliards y milliards o$ milliards + their
!roduct com!ared to the in$initely great, will e in$initely small, and the in$initely small is equal
to ,ero. God is e)erything% there$ore man and all the real world with him, the uni)erse, are
nothing. #ou will not esca!e this conclusion.
God a!!ears, man is reduced to nothing% and the greater Bi)inity ecomes, the more miserale
ecomes humanity. That is the history o$ all religions% that is the e$$ect o$ all the di)ine
ins!irations and legislations. 5n history the name o$ God is the terrile clu with which all
di)inely ins!ired men, the great :)irtuous geniuses,: ha)e eaten down the lierty, dignity,
reason, and !ros!erity o$ man.
We had $irst the $all o$ God. 6ow we ha)e a $all which interests us more + that o$ man, caused
solely y the a!!arition o$ God mani$ested on earth.
See in how !ro$ound an error our dear and illustrious idealists $ind themsel)es. 5n talking to us o$
God they !ur!ose, they desire, to ele)ate us, emanci!ate us, ennole us, and, on the contrary,
they crush and degrade us. With the name o$ God they imagine that they can estalish $raternity
among men, and, on the contrary, they create !ride, contem!t% they sow discord, hatred, war%
they estalish sla)ery. 7or with God come the di$$erent degrees o$ di)ine ins!iration% humanity is
di)ided into men highly ins!ired, less ins!ired, unins!ired. (ll are equally insigni$icant e$ore
God, it is true% ut, com!ared with each other, some are greater than others% not only in $act +
which would e o$ no consequence, ecause inequality in $act is lost in the collecti)ity when it
cannot cling to some legal $iction or institution + ut y the di)ine right o$ ins!iration, which
immediately estalishes a $i'ed, constant, !etri$ying inequality. The highly ins!ired must e
listened to and oeyed y the less ins!ired, and the less ins!ired y the unins!ired. Thus we ha)e
the !rinci!le o$ authority well estalished, and with it the two $undamental institutions o$
sla)ery* 2hurch and State.
1$ all des!otisms that o$ the doctrinaires% or ins!ired religionists is the worst. They are so
/ealous o$ the glory o$ their God and o$ the trium!h o$ their idea that they ha)e no heart le$t $or
the lierty or the dignity or e)en the su$$erings o$ li)ing men, o$ real men. Bi)ine ,eal,
!reoccu!ation with the idea, $inally dry u! the tenderest souls, the most com!assionate hearts,
the sources o$ human lo)e. 2onsidering all that is, all that ha!!ens in the world $rom the !oint o$
)iew o$ eternity or o$ the astract idea, they treat !assing matters with disdain% ut the whole li$e
o$ real men, o$ men o$ $lesh and one, is com!osed only o$ !assing matters% they themsel)es are
only !assing eings, who, once !assed, are re!laced y others likewise !assing, ut ne)er to
return in !erson. (lone !ermanent or relati)ely eternal in men is humanity, which steadily
de)elo!ing, grows richer in !assing $rom one generation to another. 5 say relatively% eternal,
ecause, our !lanet once destroyed + it cannot $ail to !erish sooner or later, since e)erything
which has egun must necessarily end + our !lanet once decom!osed, to ser)e undoutedly as an
element o$ some new $ormation in the system o$ the uni)erse, which alone is really eternal, who
knows what will ecome o$ our whole human de)elo!ment? 6e)ertheless, the moment o$ this
dissolution eing an enormous distance in the $uture, we may !ro!erly consider humanity,
relati)ely to the short duration o$ human li$e, as eternal. But this )ery $act o$ !rogressi)e
humanity is real and li)ing only through its mani$estations at de$inite times, in de$inite !laces, in
really li)ing men, and not through its general idea.
The general idea is always an astraction and, $or that )ery reason, in some sort a negation o$
real li$e. 5 ha)e stated in the (!!endi' that human thought and, in consequence o$ this, science
can gras! and name only the general signi$icance o$ real $acts, their relations, their laws + in
short, that which is !ermanent in their continual trans$ormations + ut ne)er their material,
indi)idual side, !al!itating, so to s!eak, with reality and li$e, and there$ore $ugiti)e and
intangile. Science com!rehends the thought o$ the reality, not reality itsel$% the thought o$ li$e,
not li$e. That is its limit, its only really insu!erale limit, ecause it is $ounded on the )ery nature
o$ thought, which is the only organ o$ science.
"!on this nature are ased the indis!utale rights and grand mission o$ science, ut also its )ital
im!otence and e)en its mischie)ous action whene)er, through its o$$icial licensed
re!resentati)es, it arrogantly claims the right to go)ern li$e. The mission o$ science is, y
oser)ation o$ the general relations o$ !assing and real $acts, to estalish the general laws
inherent in the de)elo!ment o$ the !henomena o$ the !hysical and social world% it $i'es, so to
s!eak, the unchangeale landmarks o$ humanityEs !rogressi)e march y indicating the general
conditions which it is necessary to rigorously oser)e and always $atal to ignore or $orget. 5n a
word, science is the com!ass o$ li$e% ut it is not li$e itsel$. Science is unchangeale, im!ersonal,
general, astract, insensile, like the laws o$ which it is ut the ideal re!roduction, re$lected or
mental + that is cereral 8using this word to remind us that science itsel$ is ut a material !roduct
o$ a material organ, the brain9. ;i$e is wholly $ugiti)e and tem!orary, ut also wholly !al!itating
with reality and indi)iduality, sensiility, su$$erings, /oys, as!irations, needs, and !assions. 5t
alone s!ontaneously creates real things and% eings. Science creates nothing% it estalishes and
recognises only the creations o$ li$e. (nd e)ery time that scienti$ic men, emerging $rom their
astract world, mingle with li)ing creation in the real world, all that they !ro!ose or create is
!oor, ridiculously astract, loodless and li$eless, still+orn, like the homunculus created y
Wagner, the !edantic disci!le o$ the immortal Boctor 7aust. 5t $ollows that the only mission o$
science is to enlighten li$e, not to go)ern it.
The go)ernment o$ science and o$ men o$ science, e)en e they !ositi)ists, disci!les o$ (uguste
2omte, or, again, disci!les o$ the doctrinaire% school o$ German 2ommunism, cannot $ail to e
im!otent, ridiculous, inhuman, cruel, o!!ressi)e, e'!loiting, male$icent. We may say o$ men o$
science, as such, what 5 ha)e said o$ theologians and meta!hysicians* they ha)e neither sense nor
heart $or indi)idual and li)ing eings. We cannot e)en lame them $or this, $or it is the natural
consequence o$ their !ro$ession. 5n so $ar as they are men o$ science, they ha)e to deal with and
can take interest in nothing e'ce!t generalities% that do the laws @...A
@Three !ages o$ the manuscri!t are missingA
... they are not e'clusi)ely men o$ science, ut are also more or less men o$ li$e.
Footnotes
[3] 5n ;ondon 5 once heard <. ;ouis Blanc e'!ress almost the same idea. :The est $orm o$
go)ernment,: said he to me, :would e that which would in)arialy call men o$ )irtuous genius
to the control o$ a$$airs.:
[4] 1ne day 5 asked <a,,ini what measures would e taken $or the emanci!ation o$ the !eo!le,
once his trium!hant unitary re!ulic had een de$initely estalished.
:The $irst measure,: he answered :will e the $oundation o$ schools $or the !eo!le.:
:(nd what will the !eo!le e taught in these schools?:
:The duties o$ man + sacri$ice and de)otion.:
But where will you $ind a su$$icient numer o$ !ro$essors to teach these things, which no one has
the right or !ower to teach, unless he !reaches y e'am!le? 5s not the numer o$ men who $ind
su!reme 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 oey a lo$ty !assion, and, satisfying this personal
passion, outside o$ which li$e itsel$ loses all )alue in their eyes, they generally think o$
something else than uilding their action into doctrine, while those who teach doctrine usually
$orget to translate it into action, $or the sim!le reason that doctrine kills the li$e, the li)ing
s!ontaneity, o$ action.
<en like <a,,ini, in whom doctrine and action $orm an admirale unity, are )ery rare
e'ce!tions. 5n 2hristianity also there ha)e een great men, holy men, who ha)e really !ractised,
or who, at least, ha)e !assionately tried to !ractice all that they !reached, and whose hearts,
o)er$lowing with lo)e, were $ull o$ contem!t $or the !leasures and goods o$ this world. But the
immense ma/ority o$ 2atholic and &rotestant !riests who, y trade, ha)e !reached and still
!reach the doctrines o$ chastity, astinence, and renunciation elie their teachings y their
e'am!le. 5t is not without reason, ut ecause o$ se)eral centuriesE e'!erience, that among the
!eo!le o$ all countries these !hrases ha)e ecome y+words* ,s licentious as a priest; as
gluttonous as a priest; as ambitious as a priest; as greedy# selfish# and grasping as a priest. 5t is,
then, estalished that the !ro$essors o$ the 2hristian )irtues, consecrated y the 2hurch, the
!riests, in the immense ma&ority of cases, ha)e !ractised quite the contrary o$ what they ha)e
!reached. This )ery ma/ority, the uni)ersality o$ this $act, show that the $ault is not to e
attriuted to them as indi)iduals, ut to the social !osition, im!ossile and contradictory in itsel$,
in which these indi)iduals are !laced.
The !osition o$ the 2hristian !riest in)ol)es a doule contradiction. 5n the $irst !lace, that
etween the doctrine o$ astinence and renunciation and the !ositi)e tendencies and needs o$
human nature + tendencies and needs which, in some indi)idual cases, always )ery rare, may
indeed e continually held ack, su!!ressed, and e)en entirely annihilated y the constant
in$luence o$ some !otent intellectual and moral !assion% which at certain moments o$ collecti)e
e'altation, may e $orgotten and neglected $or some time y a large mass o$ men at once% ut
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 re!laced
at last y unwholesome and monstrous satis$action. This is a natural and consequently $atal and
irresistile law, under the disastrous action o$ which ine)italy $all all 2hristian !riests and
es!ecially those o$ the 3oman 2atholic 2hurch. 5t cannot a!!ly to the !ro$essors, that is to the
!riests o$ the modern 2hurch, unless they are also oliged to !reach 2hristian astinence and
renunciation.
But there is another contradiction common to the !riests o$ oth sects. This contradiction grows
out o$ the )ery title and !osition o$ the master. ( master who commands, o!!resses, and e'!loits
is a wholly logical and quite natural !ersonage. But a master who sacri$ices himsel$ to those who
are suordinated to him y his di)ine or human !ri)ilege is a contradictory and quite im!ossile
eing. This is the )ery constitution o$ hy!ocrisy, so well !ersoni$ied y the &o!e, who, while
calling himsel$ the lowest servant of the servants of God + in token whereo$, $ollowing the
e'am!le o$ 2hrist, he e)en washes once a year the $eet o$ twel)e 3oman eggars + !roclaims
himsel$ at the same time )icar o$ God, asolute and in$allile master o$ the world. Bo 5 need to
recall that the !riests o$ all churches, $ar $rom sacri$icing themsel)es to the $locks con$ided to
their care, ha)e always sacri$iced them, e'!loited them, and ke!t them in the condition o$ a
$lock, !artly to satis$y their own !ersonal !assions and !artly to ser)e the omni!otence o$ the
2hurch? ;ike conditions, like causes, always !roduce like e$$ects. 5t will, then, e the same with
the !ro$essors o$ the modern School di)inely ins!ired and licensed y the State. They will
necessarily ecome, some without knowing it, others with $ull knowledge o$ the cause, teachers
o$ the doctrine o$ !o!ular sacri$ice to the !ower o$ the State and to the !ro$it o$ the !ri)ileged
classes.
<ust we, then, eliminate $rom society all instruction and aolish all schools? 7ar $rom it4
5nstruction must e s!read among the masses without stint, trans$orming all the churches, all
those tem!les dedicated to the glory o$ God and to the sla)ery o$ men, into so many schools o$
human emanci!ation. But, in the $irst !lace, let us understand each other% schools, !ro!erly
s!eaking, in a normal society $ounded on equality and on res!ect $or human lierty, will e'ist
only $or children and not $or adults* and, in order that they may ecome schools o$ emanci!ation
and not o$ ensla)ement, it will e necessary to eliminate, $irst o$ all, this $iction o$ God, the
eternal and asolute ensla)er. The whole education o$ children and their instruction must e
$ounded on the scienti$ic de)elo!ment o$ reason, not on that o$ $aith% on the de)elo!ment o$
!ersonal dignity and inde!endence, not on that o$ !iety and oedience% on the worshi! o$ truth
and /ustice at any cost, and ao)e all on res!ect $or humanity, which must re!lace always and
e)erywhere the worshi! o$ di)inity. The !rinci!le o$ authority, in the education o$ children,
constitutes the natural !oint o$ de!arture% it is legitimate, necessary, when a!!lied to children o$ a
tender age, whose intelligence has not yet o!enly de)elo!ed itsel$. But as the de)elo!ment o$
e)erything, and consequently o$ education, im!lies the gradual negation o$ the !oint o$
de!arture, this !rinci!le must diminish as $ast as education and instruction ad)ance, gi)ing !lace
to increasing lierty. (ll rational education is at ottom nothing ut this !rogressi)e immolation
o$ authority $or the ene$it o$ lierty, the $inal o/ect o$ education necessarily eing the
$ormation o$ $ree men $ull o$ res!ect and lo)e $or the lierty o$ others. There$ore the $irst day o$
the !u!ilsE li$e, i$ the school takes in$ants scarcely ale as yet to stammer a $ew words, should e
that o$ the greatest authority and an almost entire asence o$ lierty% ut its last day should e
that o$ the greatest lierty and the asolute aolition o$ e)ery )estige o$ the animal or di)ine
!rinci!le o$ authority.
The !rinci!le o$ authority, a!!lied to men who ha)e sur!assed or attained their ma/ority,
ecomes a monstrosity, a $lagrant denial o$ humanity, a source o$ sla)ery and intellectual and
moral de!ra)ity. "n$ortunately, !aternal go)ernments ha)e le$t the masses to wallow in an
ignorance so !ro$ound that it will e necessary to estalish schools not only $or the !eo!leEs
children, ut $or the !eo!le themsel)es. 7rom these schools will e asolutely eliminated the
smallest a!!lications or mani$estations o$ the !rinci!le o$ authority. They will e schools no
longer% they will e !o!ular academies, in which neither !u!ils nor masters will e known,
where the !eo!le will come $reely to get, i$ they need it, $ree instruction, and in which, rich in
their own e'!erience, they will teach in their turn many things to the !ro$essors who shall ring
them knowledge which they lack. This, then, will e a mutual instruction, an act o$ intellectual
$raternity etween the educated youth and the !eo!le.
The real school $or the !eo!le and $or all grown men is li$e. The only grand and omni!otent
authority, at once natural and rational, the only one which we may res!ect, will e that o$ the
collecti)e and !ulic s!irit o$ a society $ounded on equality and solidarity and the mutual human
res!ect o$ all its memers. #es. this is an authority which is not at all di)ine, wholly human, ut
e$ore which we shall ow willingly, certain that, $ar $rom ensla)ing them, it will emanci!ate
men. 5t will e a thousand times more !ower$ul, e sure o$ it than all your di)ine, theological
meta!hysical, !olitical, and /udicial authorities, estalished y the 2hurch and y the State, more
!ower$ul than your criminal codes, your /ailers, and your e'ecutioners.
The !ower o$ collecti)e sentiment or !ulic s!irit is e)en now a )ery serious matter. The men
most ready to commit crimes rarely dare to de$y it, to o!enly a$$ront it. They will seek to decei)e
it, ut will take care not to e rude with it unless they $eel the su!!ort o$ a minority larger or
smaller. 6o man, howe)er !ower$ul he elie)es himsel$, will e)er ha)e the strength to ear the
unanimous contem!t o$ society% no one can li)e without $eeling himsel$ sustained y the
a!!ro)al and esteem o$ at least some !ortion o$ society. ( man must e urged on y an immense
and )ery sincere con)iction in order to $ind courage to s!eak and act against the o!inion o$ all,
and ne)er will a sel$ish, de!ra)ed, and cowardly man ha)e such courage.
6othing !ro)es more clearly than this $act the natural and ine)itale solidarity + this law o$
sociaility + which inds all men together, as each o$ us can )eri$y daily, oth on himsel$ and on
all the men whom he knows But, i$ this social !ower e'ists, why has it not su$$iced hitherto to
moralise, to humanise men? Sim!ly ecause hitherto this !ower has not een humanised itsel$% it
has not een humanised ecause the social li$e o$ which it is e)er the $aith$ul e'!ression is ased,
as we know, on the worshi! o$ di)inity not on res!ect $or humanity% on authority, not on lierty%
on !ri)ilege, not on equality% on the e'!loitation, not on the rotherhood o$ men% on iniquity and
$alsehood, not on /ustice and truth. 2onsequently its real action, always in contradiction o$ the
humanitarian theories which it !ro$esses, has constantly e'ercised a disastrous and de!ra)ing
in$luence. 5t does not re!ress )ices and crimes% it creates them. 5ts authority is consequently a
di)ine, anti+human authority% its in$luence is mischie)ous and ale$ul. Bo you wish to render its
authority and in$luence ene$icent and human? (chie)e the social re)olution. <ake 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 ut one means* Bestroy all the institutions o$ 5nequality%
estalish the economic and social equality o$ all, and on this asis will arise the lierty the
morality, the solidary humanity o$ all.
5 shall return to this, the most im!ortant question o$ Socialism.
III

6e)ertheless, we must not rely too much on this. Though we may e well nigh certain that a
savant% would not dare to treat a man today as he treats a rait, it remains always to e $eared
that the savants% as a ody, i$ not inter$ered with, may sumit li)ing men to scienti$ic
e'!eriments, undoutedly less cruel ut none the less disagreeale to their )ictims. 5$ they cannot
!er$orm e'!eriments u!on the odies o$ indi)iduals, they will ask nothing etter than to !er$orm
them on the social ody, and that what must e asolutely !re)ented.
5n their e'isting organisation, mono!olising science and remaining thus outside o$ social li$e, the
savants% $orm a se!arate caste, in many res!ects analogous to the !riesthood. Scienti$ic
astractions is their God, li)ing and real indi)iduals are their )ictims, and they are the
consecrated and licensed sacri$icers.
Science cannot go outside o$ the s!here o$ astractions. 5n this res!ect it is in$initely in$erior to
art, which, in its turn, is !eculiarly concerned also with general ty!es and general situations, ut
which incarnates them y 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$e% art in a
certain sense indi)iduali,es the ty!es and situations which it concei)es% y means o$ the
indi)idualities without $lesh and one, and consequently !ermanent and immortal, which it has
the !ower to create, it recalls to our minds the li)ing, real indi)idualities which a!!ear and
disa!!ear under our eyes. (rt, then, is as it were the return o$ astraction to li$e% science, on the
contrary, is the !er!etual immolation o$ li$e, $ugiti)e, tem!orary, ut real, on the altar o$ eternal
astractions.
Science is as inca!ale o$ gras!ing the indi)iduality o$ a man as that o$ a rait, eing equally
indi$$erent to oth. 6ot that it is ignorant o$ the !rinci!le o$ indi)iduality* it concei)es it !er$ectly
as a !rinci!le, ut not as a $act. 5t knows )ery well that all the animal s!ecies, including the
human s!ecies, ha)e no real e'istence outside o$ an inde$inite numer o$ indi)iduals, orn and
dying to make room $or new indi)iduals equally $ugiti)e. 5t knows that in rising $rom the animal
s!ecies to the su!erior s!ecies the !rinci!le o$ indi)iduality ecomes more !ronounced% the
indi)iduals a!!ear $reer and more com!lete. 5t knows that man, the last and most !er$ect animal
o$ earth, !resents the most com!lete and most remarkale indi)iduality, ecause o$ his !ower to
concei)e, concrete, !ersoni$y, as it were, in his social and !ri)ate e'istence, the uni)ersal law. 5t
knows, $inally, when it is not )itiated y theological or meta!hysical, !olitical or /udicial
doctrinairisme# or e)en y a narrow scienti$ic !ride, when it is not dea$ to the instincts and
s!ontaneous as!irations o$ li$e + it knows 8and this is its last word9 that res!ect $or man is the
su!reme law o$ 0umanity, and that the great, the real o/ect o$ history, its only legitimate o/ect
is the humani,ation and emanci!ation, the real lierty, the !ros!erity and ha!!iness o$ each
indi)idual li)ing in society. 7or, i$ we would not $all ack into the lierticidal $iction o$ the
!ulic wel$are re!resented y the State, a $iction always $ounded on the systematic sacri$ice o$
the !eo!le, we must clearly recogni,e that collecti)e lierty and !ros!erity e'ist only so $ar as
they re!resent the sum o$ indi)idual lierties and !ros!erities.
Science knows all these things, ut it does not and cannot go eyond them. (straction eing its
)ery nature, it can well enough concei)e the !rinci!le o$ real and li)ing indi)iduality, ut it can
ha)e no dealings with real and li)ing indi)iduals% it concerns itsel$ with indi)iduals in general,
ut 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. 5ts indi)iduals, 5 re!eat, are only astractions.
6ow, history is made, not y astract indi)iduals, ut y acting, li)ing and !assing indi)iduals.
(stractions ad)ance only when orne $orward y real men. 7or these eings made, not in idea
only, ut in reality o$ $lesh and lood, science has no heart* it considers them at most as material
for intellectual and social development. What does it care $or the !articular conditions and
chance $ate o$ &eter or .ames? 5t would make itsel$ ridiculous, it would adicate, it would
annihilate itsel$, i$ it wished to concern itsel$ with them otherwise than as e'am!les in su!!ort o$
its eternal theories. (nd it would e ridiculous to wish it to do so, $or its mission lies not there. 5t
cannot gras! the concrete% it can mo)e only in astractions. 5ts mission is to usy itsel$ with the
situation and the general conditions o$ the e'istence and de)elo!ment, either o$ the human
s!ecies in general, or o$ such a race, such a !eo!le, such a class or category o$ indi)iduals% the
general causes o$ their !ros!erity, their decline, and the est general methods o$ securing, their
!rogress in all ways. &ro)ided it accom!lishes this task roadly and rationally, it will do its
whole duty, and it would e really un/ust to e'!ect more o$ it.
But it would e equally ridiculous, it would e disastrous to entrust it with a mission which it is
inca!ale o$ $ul$illing. Since its own nature $orces it to ignore the e'istence o$ &eter and .ames, it
must ne)er e !ermitted, nor must anyody e !ermitted in its name, to go)ern &eter and .ames.
7or it were ca!ale o$ treating them almost as it treats raits. 1r rather, it would continue to
ignore them% ut its licensed re!resentati)es, men not at all astract, ut on the contrary in )ery
acti)e li$e and ha)ing )ery sustantial interests, yielding to the !ernicious in$luence which
!ri)ilege ine)italy e'ercises u!on men, would $inally $leece other men in the name o$ science,
/ust as they ha)e een $leeced hitherto y !riests, !oliticians o$ all shades, and lawyers, in the
name o$ God, o$ the State, o$ /udicial 3ight.
What 5 !reach 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 e high treason to humanity + ut to
remand it to its !lace so that it can ne)er lea)e it again. "ntil now all human history has een
only a !er!etual and loody immolation o$ millions o$ !oor human eings in honor o$ some
!itiless astraction + God, country, !ower o$ State, national honor, historical rights, /udicial
rights, !olitical lierty, !ulic wel$are. Such has een u! to today the natural, s!ontaneous, and
ine)itale mo)ement o$ human societies. We cannot undo it% we must sumit to it so $ar as the
!ast is concerned, as we sumit to all natural $atalities. We must elie)e that that was the only
!ossile way, to educate the human race. 7or we must not decei)e oursel)es* e)en in attriuting
the larger !art to the <achia)ellian wiles o$ the go)erning classes, we ha)e to recogni,e that no
minority would ha)e een !ower$ul enough to im!ose all these horrile sacri$ices u!on the
masses i$ there had not een in the masses themsel)es a di,,y s!ontaneous mo)ement which
!ushed them on to continual sel$+sacri$ice, now to one, now to another o$ these de)ouring
astractions the )am!ires o$ history e)er nourished u!on human lood.
We readily understand that this is )ery grati$ying, to the theologians, !oliticians, and /urists.
&riests o$ these astractions, they li)e only y the continual immolation o$ the !eo!le. 6or is it
more sur!rising that meta!hysics too, should gi)e its consent. 5ts only mission is to /usti$y and
rationali,e as $ar as !ossile the iniquitous and asurd. But that !ositi)e science itsel$ should
ha)e shown the same tendencies is a $act which we must de!lore while we estalish it. That it
has done so is due to two reasons* in the $irst !lace, ecause, constituted outside o$ li$e, it is
re!resented y a !ri)ileged ody% and in the second !lace, ecause thus $ar it has !osited itsel$ as
an asolute and $inal o/ect o$ all human de)elo!ment. By a /udicious criticism, which it can and
$inally will e $orced to !ass u!on itsel$, it would understand, on the contrary, that it is only a
means $or the reali,ation o$ a much higher o/ect + that o$ the com!lete humani,ation o$ the real
situation o$ all the real indi)iduals who are orn, who li)e, and who die, on earth.
The immense ad)antage o$ !ositi)e science o)er theology, meta!hysics, !olitics, and /udicial
right consists in this + that, in !lace o$ the $alse and $atal astractions set u! y these doctrines, it
!osits true astractions which e'!ress the general nature and logic o$ things, their general
relations, and the general laws o$ their de)elo!ment. This se!arates it !ro$oundly $rom all
!receding doctrines, and will assure it $or e)er a great !osition in society* it will constitute in a
certain sense societyEs collecti)e consciousness. But there is one as!ect in which it resemles all
these doctrines* its only !ossile o/ect eing astractions, it is $orced y its )ery nature to
ignore real men, outside o$ whom the truest astractions ha)e no e'istence. To remedy this
radical de$ect !ositi)e science will ha)e to !roceed y a di$$erent method $rom that $ollowed y
the doctrines o$ the !ast. The latter ha)e taken ad)antage o$ the ignorance o$ the masses to
sacri$ice them with delight to their astractions, which y the way, are always )ery lucrati)e to
those who re!resent them in $lesh and one. &ositi)e science, recogni,ing its asolute inaility to
concei)e real indi)iduals and interest itsel$ in their lot, must de$initely and asolutely renounce
all claim to the go)ernment o$ societies% $or i$ it should meddle therein, it would only sacri$ice
continually the li)ing men whom it ignores to the astractions which constitute the sole o/ect o$
its legitimate !reoccu!ations.
The true science o$ history, $or instance, does not yet e'ist% scarcely do we egin today to catch a
glim!se o$ its e'tremely com!licated conditions. But su!!ose it were de$initely de)elo!ed, what
could it gi)e us? 5t would e'hiit a $aith$ul and rational !icture o$ the natural de)elo!ment o$ the
general conditions + material and ideal, economical, !olitical and social, religious, !hiloso!hical,
aesthetic, and scienti$ic + o$ the societies which ha)e a history. But this uni)ersal !icture o$
human ci)ili,ation, howe)er detailed it might e, would ne)er show anything eyond general
and consequently abstract estimates. The milliards o$ indi)iduals who ha)e $urnished the living
and suffering materials o$ this history at once trium!hant and dismal + trium!hant y its general
results, dismal y the immense hecatom o$ human )ictims :crushed under its car: + those
milliards o$ oscure indi)iduals without whom none o$ the great astract results o$ history would
ha)e een otained + and who, ear in mind, ha)e ne)er ene$ited y any o$ these results + will
$ind no !lace, not e)en the slightest in our annals. They ha)e li)ed and een sacri$iced, crushed
$or the good o$ astract humanity, that is all.
Shall we lame the science o$ history. That would e un/ust and ridiculous. 5ndi)iduals cannot e
gras!ed y thought, y re$lection, or e)en y human s!eech, which is ca!ale o$ e'!ressing
astractions only% they cannot e gras!ed in the !resent day any more than in the !ast. 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 !oint us with $aith$ul and sure hand to the general
causes of individual suffering + among these causes it will not $orget the immolation and
suordination 8still too $requent, alas49 o$ li)ing indi)iduals to astract 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, eyond which the action o$ social
science can e only im!otent and $atal. Beyond those limits eing the doctrinaire and
go)ernmental !retentious o$ its licensed re!resentati)es, its !riests. 5t is time to ha)e done with
all !o!es and !riests% we want them no longer, e)en i$ they call themsel)es Social Bemocrats.
1nce more, the sole mission o$ science is to light the road. 1nly ;i$e, deli)ered $rom all its
go)ernmental and doctrinaire arriers, and gi)en $ull lierty o$ action, can create.
0ow sol)e this antinomy?
1n the one hand, science is indis!ensale to the rational organi,ation o$ society% on the other,
eing inca!ale o$ interesting itsel$ in that which is real and li)ing, it must not inter$ere with the
real or !ractical organi,ation o$ society.
This contradiction can e sol)ed only in one way* y the liquidation o$ science as a moral eing
e'isting outside the li$e o$ all, and re!resented y a ody o$ re)eted savants; it must s!read
among the masses. Science, eing called u!on to hence$orth re!resent societyEs collecti)e
consciousness, must really ecome the !ro!erty o$ e)eryody. Therey, without losing anything
o$ its uni)ersal character, o$ which it can ne)er di)est itsel$ without ceasing to e 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 ecome one in $act with the immediate and real li$e o$
all indi)iduals. That will e a mo)ement analogous to that which said to the &rotestants at the
eginning o$ the 3e$ormation that there was no $urther need o$ !riests $or man, who would
hence$orth e his own !riest, e)ery man, thanks to the in)isile inter)ention o$ the ;ord .esus
2hrist alone, ha)ing at last succeeded in swallowing his good God. But here the question is not
o$ .esus 2hrist, nor good God, nor o$ !olitical lierty, nor o$ /udicial right + things all
theologically or meta!hysically re)ealed, and all alike indigestile. The world o$ scienti$ic
astractions is not re)ealed% it is inherent in the real world, o$ which it is only the general or
astract e'!ression and re!resentation. (s long as it $orms a se!arate region, s!ecially
re!resented y the savants as a ody, this ideal world threatens to take the !lace o$ a good God to
the real world, reser)ing $or its licensed re!resentati)es the o$$ice o$ !riests. That is the reason
why it is necessary to dissol)e the s!ecial social organi,ation o$ the savants y general
instruction, equal $or all in all things, in order that the masses, ceasing to e $locks led and shorn
y !ri)ileged !riests, may take into their own hands the direction o$ their destinies. [5]
But until the masses shall ha)e reached this degree o$ instruction, will it e necessary to lea)e
them to the go)ernment o$ scienti$ic men? 2ertainly not. 5t would e etter $or them to dis!ense
with science than allow themsel)es to e go)erned y savants. The $irst consequence o$ the
go)ernment o$ these men would e to render science inaccessile to the !eo!le, and such a
go)ernment would necessarily e aristocratic ecause the e'isting scienti$ic institutions are
essentially aristocratic. (n aristocracy o$ learning4 $rom the !ractical !oint o$ )iew the most
im!lacale, and $rom the social !oint o$ )iew the most haughty and insulting + such would e the
!ower estalished in the name o$ science. This r+gime would e ca!ale o$ !araly,ing the li$e
and mo)ement o$ society. The savants always !resum!tuous, e)er sel$+su$$icient and e)er
im!otent, would desire to meddle with e)erything, and the sources o$ li$e would dry u! under the
reath o$ their astractions.
1nce more, ;i$e, not science, creates li$e% the s!ontaneous action o$ the !eo!le themsel)es alone
can create lierty. "ndoutedly it would e a )ery $ortunate thing i$ science could, $rom this day
$orth, illuminate the s!ontaneous march o$ the !eo!le towards their emanci!ation. But etter an
asence o$ light than a $alse and $eele light, kindled only to mislead those who $ollow it. ($ter
all, the !eo!le will not lack light. 6ot in )ain ha)e they tra)ersed a long historic career, and !aid
$or their errors y centuries o$ misery. The !ractical summary o$ their !ain$ul e'!eriences
constitutes a sort o$ traditional science, which in certain res!ects is worth as much as theoretical
science. ;ast o$ all, a !ortion o$ the youth + those o$ the ourgeois students who $eel hatred
enough $or the $alsehood, hy!ocrisy, in/ustice, and cowardice o$ the ourgeoisie to $ind courage
to turn their acks u!on it, and !assion enough to unreser)edly emrace the /ust and human
cause o$ the !roletariat + those will e, as 5 ha)e already said, $raternal instructors o$ the !eo!le%
thanks to them, there will e no occasion $or the go)ernment o$ the savants.
5$ the !eo!le should eware o$ the go)ernment o$ the savants, all the more should they !ro)ide
against that o$ the ins!ired idealists. The more sincere these elie)ers and !oets o$ hea)en, the
more dangerous they ecome. The scienti$ic astraction, 5 ha)e said, is a rational astraction,
true in its essence, necessary to li$e, o$ which it is the theoretical re!resentation, or, i$ one
!re$ers, the conscience. 5t may, it must e, asored and digested y li$e. The idealistic
astraction, God, is a corrosi)e !oison, which destroys and decom!oses li$e, $alsi$ies and kills it.
The !ride o$ the idealists, not eing !ersonal ut di)ine, is in)incile and ine'orale* it may, it
must, die, ut it will ne)er yield, and while it has a reath le$t it will try to su/ect men to its
God, /ust as the lieutenants o$ &russia, these !ractical idealists o$ Germany, would like to see the
!eo!le crushed under the s!urred oot o$ their em!eror. The $aith is the same, the end ut little
di$$erent, and the result, as that o$ $aith, is sla)ery.
5t is at the same time the trium!h o$ the ugliest and most rutal materialism. There is no need to
demonstrate this in the case o$ Germany% one would ha)e to e lind to a)oid seeing it at the
!resent hour. But 5 think it is still necessary to demonstrate it in the case o$ di)ine idealism.
<an, like all the rest o$ nature, is an entirely material eing. The mind, the $acility o$ thinking, o$
recei)ing and re$lecting u!on di$$erent e'ternal and internal sensations, o$ rememering them
when they ha)e !assed and re!roducing them y the imagination, o$ com!aring and
distinguishing them, o$ astracting determinations common to them and thus creating general
conce!ts, and $inally o$ $orming ideas y grou!ing and comining conce!ts according to
di$$erent methods + intelligence, in a word, sole creator o$ our whole, ideal world, is a !ro!erty o$
the animal ody and es!ecially o$ the quite material organism o$ the rain.
We know this certainly, y the e'!erience o$ all, which no $act has e)er contradicted and which
any man can )eri$y at any moment o$ his li$e. 5n all animals, without e'ce!ting the wholly
in$erior s!ecies, we $ind a certain degree o$ intelligence, and we see that, in the series o$ s!ecies,
animal intelligence de)elo!s in !ro!ortion as the organi,ation o$ a s!ecies a!!roaches that o$
man, ut that in man alone it attains to that !ower o$ astraction which !ro!erly constitutes
thought.
"ni)ersal e'!erience, [6] which is the sole origin, the source o$ all our knowledge, shows us,
there$ore, that all intelligence is always attached to some animal ody, and that the intensity, the
!ower, o$ this animal $unction de!ends on the relati)e !er$ection o$ the organism. The latter o$
these results o$ uni)ersal e'!erience is not a!!licale only to the di$$erent animal s!ecies% we
estalish it likewise in men, whose intellectual and moral !ower de!ends so clearly u!on the
greater or less !er$ection o$ their organism as a race, as a nation, as a class, and as indi)iduals,
that it is not necessary to insist u!on this !oint. [7]
1n the other hand, it is certain that no man has e)er seen or can see !ure mind, detached $rom all
material $orm e'isting se!arately $rom any animal ody whatsoe)er. But i$ no !erson has seen it,
how is it that men ha)e come to elie)e in its e'istence? The $act o$ this elie$ is certain and i$
not uni)ersal, as all the idealists !retend, at least )ery general, and as such it is entirely worthy o$
our closest attention, $or a general elie$, howe)er $oolish it may e, e'ercises too !otent a sway
o)er the destiny o$ men to warrant us in ignoring it or !utting it aside.
The e'!lanation o$ this elie$, moreo)er, is rational enough. The e'am!le a$$orded us y children
and young !eo!le, and e)en y many men long !ast the age o$ ma/ority, shows us that man may
use his mental $aculties $or a long time e$ore accounting to himsel$ $or the way in which he uses
them, e$ore ecoming clearly conscious o$ it. Buring this working o$ the mind unconscious o$
itsel$, during this action o$ innocent or elie)ing intelligence, man, osessed y the e'ternal
world, !ushed on y that internal goad called li$e and its mani$old necessities, creates a quantity
o$ imaginations, conce!ts, and ideas necessarily )ery im!er$ect at $irst and con$orming ut
slightly to the reality o$ the things and $acts which they endea)our to e'!ress 6ot ha)ing yet the
consciousness o$ his own intelligent action, not knowing yet that he himsel$ has !roduced and
continues to !roduce these imaginations, these conce!ts, these ideas, ignoring their wholly
sub&ective + that is, human+origin, he must naturally consider them as ob&ective% eings, as real
eings, wholly inde!endent o$ him, e'isting y themsel)es and in themsel)es.
5t was thus that !rimiti)e !eo!les, emerging slowly $rom their animal innocence, created their
gods. 0a)ing created them, not sus!ecting that they themsel)es were the real creators, they
worshi!!ed them% considering them as real eings in$initely su!erior to themsel)es, they
attriuted omni!otence to them, and recognised themsel)es as their creatures, their sla)es. (s
$ast as human ideas de)elo!, the gods, who, as 5 ha)e already stated, were ne)er anything more
than a $antastic, ideal, !oetical re)ereration o$ an in)erted image, ecome idealised also. (t $irst
gross $etishes, they gradually ecome !ure s!irits, e'isting outside o$ the )isile world, and at
last, in the course o$ a long historic e)olution, are con$ounded in a single Bi)ine Being, !ure,
eternal, asolute S!irit, creator and master o$ the worlds.
5n e)ery de)elo!ment, /ust or $alse, real or imaginary collecti)e or indi)idual, it is always the
$irst ste!, the $irst act that is the most di$$icult. That ste! once taken, the rest $ollows naturally as
a necessary consequence. The di$$icult ste! in the historical de)elo!ment o$ this terrile religious
insanity which continues to osess and crush us was to !osit a di)ine world as such, outside the
world. This $irst act o$ madness, so natural $rom the !hysiological !oint o$ )iew and
consequently necessary in the history o$ humanity, was not accom!lished at a single stroke. 5
know not how many centuries were needed to de)elo! this elie$ and make it a go)erning
in$luence u!on the mental customs o$ men. But, once estalished, it ecame omni!otent, as each
insane notion necessarily ecomes when it takes !ossession o$ manEs rain. Take a madman,
whate)er the o/ect o$ his madness + you will $ind that oscure and $i'ed idea which osesses
him seems to him the most natural thing in the world, and that, on the contrary, the real things
which contradict this idea seem to him ridiculous and odious $ollies. Well religion is a collecti)e
insanity, the more !ower$ul ecause it is traditional $olly, and ecause its origin is lost in the
most remote antiquity. (s collecti)e insanity it has !enetrated to the )ery de!ths o$ the !ulic
and !ri)ate e'istence o$ the !eo!les% it is incarnate in society% it has ecome, so to s!eak, the
collecti)e soul and thought. -)ery man is en)elo!ed in it $rom his irth% he sucks it in with his
motherEs milk, asors it with all that he touches, all that he sees. 0e is so e'clusi)eAy $ed u!on
it, so !oisoned and !enetrated y it in all his eing that later, howe)er !ower$ul his natural mind,
he has to make unheard+o$ e$$orts to deli)er himsel$ $rom it, and then ne)er com!letely succeeds.
We ha)e one !roo$ o$ this in our modern idealists, and another in our doctrinaire% materialists +
the German 2ommunists. They ha)e $ound no way to shake o$$ the religion o$ the State.
The su!ernatural world, the di)ine world, once well estalished in the imagination o$ the
!eo!les, the de)elo!ment o$ the )arious religious systems has $ollowed its natural and logical
course, con$orming, moreo)er, in all things to the contem!orary de)elo!ment o$ economical and
!olitical relations o$ which it has een in all ages, in the world o$ religious $ancy, the $aith$ul
re!roduction and di)ine consecration. Thus has the collecti)e and historical insanity which calls
itsel$ religion een de)elo!ed since $etishism, !assing through all the stages $rom !olytheism to
2hristian monotheism.
The second ste! in the de)elo!ment o$ religious elie$s, undoutedly the most di$$icult ne't to
the estalishment o$ a se!arate di)ine world, was !recisely this transition $rom !olytheism to
monotheism, $rom the religious materialism o$ the !agans to the s!iritualistic $aith o$ the
2hristians. She !agan gods + and this was their !rinci!al characteristic + were $irst o$ all
e'clusi)ely national gods. ?ery numerous, they necessarily retained a more or less material
character, or, rather, they were so numerous ecause they were material, di)ersity eing one o$
the !rinci!al attriutes o$ the real world. The !agan 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 !eo!le, constituting, so to s!eak, its entire
history. 5n )ain did <oses and the !ro!hets !reach the one god% the !eo!le always rela!sed into
their !rimiti)e idolatry, into the ancient and com!arati)ely much more natural and con)enient
$aith in many good gods, more material, more human, and more !al!ale. .eho)ah himsel$, their
sole God, the God o$ <oses and the !ro!hets, was still an e'tremely national God, who, to
reward and !unish his $aith$ul $ollowers, his chosen !eo!le, used material arguments, o$ten
stu!id, always gross and cruel. 5t does not e)en a!!ear that $aith in his e'istence im!lied a
negation o$ the e'istence o$ earlier gods. The .ewish God did not deny the e'istence o$ these
ri)als% he sim!ly did not want his !eo!le to worshi! them side y side with him, ecause e$ore
all .eho)ah was a )ery .ealous God. 0is $irst commandment was this*
:5 am the ;ord thy God, and thou shalt ha)e no other gods e$ore me.:
.eho)ah, then, was only a $irst dra$t, )ery material and )ery rough, o$ the su!reme deity o$
modern idealism. <oreo)er, he was only a national God, like the 3ussian God worshi!!ed y
the German generals, su/ects o$ the 2,ar and !atriots o$ the em!ire o$ all the 3ussias% like the
German God, whom the !ietists and the German generals, su/ects o$ William 5. at Berlin, will
no dout soon !roclaim. The su!reme eing cannot e a national God% he must e the God o$
entire 0umanity. 6or can the su!reme eing e a material eing% he must e the negation o$ all
matter + !ure s!irit. Two things ha)e !ro)ed necessary to the realisation o$ the worshi! o$ the
su!reme eing*
819 a realisation, such as it is, o$ 0umanity y the negation o$ nationalities and national $orms o$
worshi!%
8=9 a de)elo!ment, already $ar ad)anced, o$ meta!hysical ideas in order to s!iritualise the gross
.eho)ah o$ the .ews.
The $irst condition was $ul$illed y the 3omans, though in a )ery negati)e way no dout, y the
conquest o$ most o$ the countries known to the ancients and y 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 $or the second condition, the s!iritualisation o$ .eho)ah, that was realised y the Greeks long
e$ore the conquest o$ their country y the 3omans. They were the creators o$ meta!hysics.
Greece, in the cradle o$ her history, had already $ound $rom the 1rient a di)ine world which had
een de$initely estalished in the traditional $aith o$ her !eo!les% this world had een le$t and
handed o)er to her y the 1rient. 5n her instincti)e !eriod, !rior to her !olitical history, she had
de)elo!ed and !rodigiously humanised this di)ine world through her !oets% and when she
actually egan her history, she already had a religion readymade, the most sym!athetic and nole
o$ all the religions which ha)e e'isted, so $ar at least as a religion + that is, a lie + can e nole
and sym!athetic. 0er great thinkers + and no nation has had greater than Greece + $ound the
di)ine world estalished, not only outside o$ themsel)es in the !eo!le, ut also in themsel)es as
a hait o$ $eeling and thought, and naturally they took it as a !oint o$ de!arture. That they made
no theology + that is, that they did not wait in )ain to reconcile dawning reason with the
asurdities 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 s!eculations and attached themsel)es directly to the di)ine
idea, one, in)isile, omni!otent, eternal, and asolutely s!iritualistic ut im!ersonal. (s concerns
S!iritualism, then, the Greek meta!hysicians, much more than the .ews, were the creators o$ the
2hristian god. The .ews only added to it the rutal !ersonality o$ their .eho)ah.
That a sulime genius like the di)ine &lato could ha)e een asolutely con)inced o$ the reality o$
the di)ine idea shows us how contagious, how omni!otent, is the tradition o$ the religious mania
e)en on the greatest minds. Besides, we should not e sur!rised at it, since, e)en in our day, the
greatest !hiloso!hical genius which has e'isted since (ristotle and &lato, 0egel + in s!ite e)en o$
CantEs criticism, im!er$ect and too meta!hysical though it e, which had demolished the
o/ecti)ity or reality o$ the di)ine ideas + tried to re!lace these di)ine ideas u!on their
transcendental or celestial throne. 5t is true that 0egel went aout his work o$ restoration in so
im!olite a manner that he killed the good God $or e)er. 0e took away $rom these ideas their
di)ine halo, y showing to whoe)er will read him that they were ne)er anything more than a
creation o$ the human mind running through history in search o$ itsel$. To !ut an end to all
religious insanities and the di)ine mirage, he le$t nothing lacking ut the utterance o$ those grand
words which were said a$ter him, almost at the same time, y two great minds who had ne)er
heard o$ each other + ;udwig 7euerach, the disci!le and demolisher o$ 0egel, in Germany, and
(uguste 2omte, the $ounder o$ !ositi)e !hiloso!hy, in 7rance. These words were as $ollows*
:<eta!hysics are reduced to !sychology.: (ll the meta!hysical systems ha)e een nothing else
than human !sychology de)elo!ing itsel$ in history.
To+day it is no longer di$$icult to understand how the di)ine ideas were orn, how they were
created in succession y the astracti)e $aculty o$ man. <an made the gods. But in the time o$
&lato this knowledge was im!ossile. The collecti)e mind, and consequently the indi)idual mind
as well, e)en that o$ the greatest genius, was not ri!e $or that. Scarcely had it said with Socrates*
:Cnow thysel$4: This sel$+knowledge e'isted only in a state o$ intuition% in $act, it amounted to
nothing. 0ence it was im!ossile $or the human mind to sus!ect that it was itsel$ the sole creator
o$ the di)ine world. 5t $ound the di)ine world e$ore it% it $ound it as history, as tradition, as a
sentiment, as a hait o$ thought% and it necessarily made it the o/ect o$ its lo$tiest s!eculations.
Thus was orn meta!hysics, and thus were de)elo!ed and !er$ected the di)ine ideas, the asis o$
S!iritualism.
5t is true that a$ter &lato there was a sort o$ in)erse mo)ement in the de)elo!ment o$ the mind.
(ristotle, the true $ather o$ science and !ositi)e !hiloso!hy, did not deny the di)ine world, ut
concerned himsel$ with it as little as !ossile. 0e was the $irst to study, like the analyst and
e'!erimenter that he was, logic, the laws o$ human thought, and at the same time the !hysical
world, not in its ideal, illusory essence, ut in its real as!ect. ($ter him the Greeks o$ (le'andria
estalished the $irst school o$ the !ositi)e scientists. They were atheists. But their atheism le$t no
mark on their contem!oraries. Science tended more and more to se!arate itsel$ $rom li$e. ($ter
&lato, di)ine ideas were re/ected in meta!hysics themsel)es% this was done y the -!icureans and
Sce!tics, two sects who contriuted much to the degradation o$ human aristocracy, ut they had
no e$$ect u!on the masses.
(nother school, in$initely more in$luential, was $ormed at (le'andria. This was the school o$
neo+&latonists. These, con$ounding in an im!ure mi'ture the monstrous imaginations o$ the
1rient with the ideas o$ &lato, were the true originators, and later the elaorators, o$ the 2hristian
dogmas.
Thus the !ersonal and gross egoism o$ .eho)ah, the not less rutal and gross 3oman conquest,
and the meta!hysical ideal s!eculation o$ the Greeks, materialised y contact with the 1rient,
were the three historical elements which made u! the s!iritualistic religion o$ the 2hristians.
Be$ore the altar o$ a unique and su!reme God was raised on the ruins o$ the numerous altars o$
the !agan gods, the autonomy o$ the )arious nations com!osing the !agan or ancient world had
to e destroyed $irst. This was )ery rutally done y the 3omans who, y conquering the greatest
!art o$ the gloe known to the ancients, laid the $irst $oundations, quite gross and negati)e ones
no dout, o$ humanity. ( God thus raised ao)e the national di$$erences, material and social, o$
all countries, and in a certain sense the direct negation o$ them, must necessarily e an
immaterial and astract eing. But $aith in the e'istence o$ such a eing, so di$$icult a matter,
could not s!ring into e'istence suddenly. 2onsequently, as 5 ha)e demonstrated in the (!!endi',
it went through a long course o$ !re!aration and de)elo!ment at the hands o$ Greek meta!hysics,
which were the $irst to estalish in a !hiloso!hical manner the notion o$ the divine idea, a model
eternally creati)e and always re!roduced y the )isile world. But the di)inity concei)ed and
created y Greek !hiloso!hy was an im!ersonal di)inity. 6o logical and serious meta!hysics
eing ale to rise, or, rather, to descend, to the idea o$ a !ersonal God, it ecame necessary,
there$ore, to imagine a God who was one and )ery !ersonal at once. 0e was $ound in the )ery
rutal, sel$ish, and cruel !erson o$ .eho)ah, the national God o$ the .ews. But the .ews, in s!ite
o$ that e'clusi)e national s!irit which distinguishes them e)en to+day, had ecome in $act, long
e$ore the irth o$ 2hrist, the most international !eo!le o$ the world. Some o$ them carried away
as ca!ti)es, ut many more e)en urged on y that mercantile !assion which constitutes one o$ the
!rinci!al traits o$ their character, they had s!read through all countries, carrying e)erywhere the
worshi! o$ their .eho)ah, to whom they remained all the more $aith$ul the more he aandoned
them.
5n (le'andria this terrile god o$ the .ews made the !ersonal acquaintance o$ the meta!hysical
di)inity o$ &lato, already much corru!ted y 1riental contact, and corru!ted her still more y his
own. 5n s!ite o$ his national, /ealous, and $erocious e'clusi)ism, he could not long resist the
graces o$ this ideal and im!ersonal di)inity o$ the Greeks. 0e married her, and $rom this
marriage was orn the s!iritualistic + ut not s!irited + God o$ the 2hristians. The neo!latonists
o$ (le'andria are known to ha)e een the !rinci!al creators o$ the 2hristian theology.
6e)ertheless theology alone does not make a religion, any more than historical elements su$$ice
to create history. By historical elements 5 mean the general conditions o$ any real de)elo!ment
whatsoe)er + $or e'am!le in this case the conquest o$ the world y the 3omans and the meeting
o$ the God o$ the .ews with the ideal o$ di)inity o$ the Greeks. To im!regnate the historical
elements, to cause them to run through a series o$ new historical trans$ormations, a li)ing,
s!ontaneous $act was needed, without which they might ha)e remained many centuries longer in
the state o$ un!roducti)e elements. This $act was not lacking in 2hristianity* it was the
!ro!agandism, martyrdom, and death o$ .esus 2hrist.
We know almost nothing o$ this great and saintly !ersonage, all that the gos!els tell us eing
contradictory, and so $aulous that we can scarcely sei,e u!on a $ew real and )ital traits. But it is
certain that he was the !reacher o$ the !oor, the $riend and consoler o$ the wretched, o$ the
ignorant, o$ the sla)es, and o$ the women, and that y these last he was much lo)ed. 0e !romised
eternal li$e to all who are o!!ressed, to all who su$$er here elow% and the numer is immense.
0e was hanged, as a matter o$ course, y the re!resentati)es o$ the o$$icial morality and !ulic
order o$ that !eriod. 0is disci!les and the disci!les o$ his disci!les succeeded in s!reading,
thanks to the destruction o$ the national arriers y the 3oman conquest, and !ro!agated the
Gos!el in all the countries known to the ancients. -)erywhere they were recei)ed with o!en
arms y the sla)es and the women, the two most o!!ressed, most su$$ering, and naturally also the
most ignorant classes o$ the ancient world. 7or e)en such $ew !roselytes as they made in the
!ri)ileged and learned world they were indeted in great !art to the in$luence o$ women. Their
most e'tensi)e !ro!agandism was directed almost e'clusi)ely among the !eo!le, un$ortunate
and degraded y sla)ery. This was the $irst awakening, the $irst intellectual re)olt o$ the
!roletariat.
The great honour o$ 2hristianity, its incontestale merit, and the whole secret o$ its
un!recedented and yet thoroughly legitimate trium!h, lay in the $act that it a!!ealed to that
su$$ering and immense !ulic to which the ancient world, a strict and cruel intellectual and
!olitical aristocracy, denied e)en the sim!lest rights o$ humanity. 1therwise it ne)er could ha)e
s!read. The doctrine taught y the a!ostles o$ 2hrist, wholly consoling as it may ha)e seemed to
the un$ortunate, was too re)olting, too asurd $rom the stand!oint o$ human reason, e)er to ha)e
een acce!ted y enlightened men (ccording with what /oy the a!ostle &aul s!eaks o$ the
scandale de la foi% and o$ the trium!h o$ that divine folie% re/ected y the !ower$ul and wise o$
the century, ut all the more !assionately acce!ted y the sim!le, the ignorant, and the weak+
minded4
5ndeed there must ha)e een a )ery dee!+seated dissatis$action with li$e, a )ery intense thirst o$
heart, and an almost asolute !o)erty o$ thought, to secure the acce!tance o$ the 2hristian
asurdity, the most audacious and monstrous o$ all religious asurdities.
This was not only the negation o$ all the !olitical, social, and religious institutions o$ antiquity* it
was the asolute o)erturn o$ common sense, o$ all human reason. The li)ing eing, the real
world, were considered therea$ter as nothing% whereas the !roduct o$ manEs astracti)e $aculty,
the last and su!reme astraction in which this $aculty, $ar eyond e'isting things, e)en eyond
the most general determinations o$ the li)ing eing, the ideas o$ s!ace and time. ha)ing nothing
le$t to ad)ance eyond, rests in contem!lation o$ his em!tiness and asolute immoility.
That astraction, that caput mortuum, asolutely )oid o$ all contents the true nothing, God, is
!roclaimed the only real, eternal, all+!ower$ul eing. The real (ll is declared nothing and the
asolute nothing the (ll. The shadow ecomes the sustance and the sustance )anishes like a
shadow. [8]
(ll this was audacity and asurdity uns!eakale, the true scandale de la foi, the trium!h o$
credulous stu!idity o)er the mind $or the masses% and + $or a $ew + the trium!hant irony o$ a mind
wearied, corru!ted, disillusioned, and disgusted in honest and serious search $or truth% it was that
necessity o$ shaking o$$ thought and ecoming rutally stu!id so $requently $elt y sur$eited
minds*
Footnotes
[5] Science, in ecoming the !atrimony o$ e)eryody, will wed itsel$ in a certain sense to the
immediate and real li$e o$ each. 5t will gain in utility and grace what it loses in !ride, amition,
and doctrinaire !edantry. This, howe)er, will not !re)ent men o$ genius, etter organi,ed $or
scienti$ic s!eculation 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 e
amitious $or no other social in$luence than the natural in$luence e'ercised u!on its surroundings
y e)ery su!erior intelligence, and $or no other reward than the high delight which a nole mind
always $inds in the satis$action o$ a nole !assion.
[6] "ni)ersal e"perience, on which all science rests, must e clearly distinguished $rom uni)ersal
faith, on which the idealists wish to su!!ort their elie$s* the $irst is a real authentication o$ $acts%
the second is only a su!!osition o$ $acts which noody has seen, and which consequently are at
)ariance with the e'!erience o$ e)eryody.
[7] The idealists, all those who elie)e in the immateriality and immortality o$ the human soul,
must e e'cessi)ely emarrassed y the di$$erence in intelligence e'isting etween races,
!eo!les, and indi)iduals. "nless we su!!ose that the )arious di)ine !articles ha)e een
irregularly distriuted, how is this di$$erence to e e'!lained? "n$ortunately there is a
considerale numer o$ men wholly stu!id, $oolish e)en to idiocy. 2ould they ha)e recei)ed in
the distriution a !article at once di)ine and stu!id? To esca!e this emarrassment the idealists
must necessarily su!!ose that all human souls are equal. ut that the !risons in which they $ind
themsel)es necessarily con$ined, human odies, are unequal, some more ca!ale than others o$
ser)ing as an organ $or the !ure intellectuality o$ soul. (ccording to this. such a one might ha)e
)ery $ine organs at his dis!osition. such another )ery gross organs. But these are distinctions
which idealism has not the !ower to use without $alling into inconsistency and the grossest
materialism, $or in the !resence o$ asolute immateriality o$ soul all odily di$$erences disa!!ear,
all that is cor!oreal, material, necessarily a!!earing indi$$erent, equally and asolutely gross. The
ayss which se!arates soul $rom ody, asolute immateriality $rom asolute materiality, is
in$inite. 2onsequently all di$$erences, y the way ine'!licale and logically im!ossile, which
may e'ist on the other side o$ the ayss, in matter, should e to the soul null and )oid, and
neither can nor should e'ercise any in$luence o)er it. 5n a word, the asolutely immaterial cannot
e constrained, im!risoned, and much less e'!ressed in any degree whatsoe)er y the asolutely
material. 1$ all the gross and materialistic 8using the word in the sense attached to it y the
idealists9 imaginations which were engendered y the !rimiti)e ignorance and stu!idity o$ men,
that o$ an immaterial soul im!risoned in a material ody is certainly the grossest, the most stu!id.
and nothing etter !ro)es the omni!otence e'ercised y ancient !re/udices e)en o)er the est
minds than the de!lorale sight o$ men endowed with lo$ty intelligence still talking o$ it in our
days.
[8] 5 am well aware that in the theological and meta!hysical systems o$ the 1rient, and es!ecially
in those o$ 5ndia, including Buddhism, we $ind the !rinci!le o$ the annihilation o$ the real world
in $a)our o$ the ideal and o$ asolute astraction. But it has not the added character o$ )oluntary
and delierate negation which distinguishes 2hristianity% when those systems were concei)ed.
The world o$ human thought o$ will and o$ lierty, had not reached that stage o$ de)elo!ment
which was a$terwards seen in the Greek and 3oman ci)ilisation.
IV
Credo quod absurdum

5 elie)e in the asurd% 5 elie)e in it, !recisely and mainly, ecause it is asurd. 5n the same way
many distinguished and enlightened minds in our day elie)e in animal magnetism, s!iritualism,
ti!!ing tales, and + why go so $ar? + elie)e still in 2hristianity, in idealism, in God.
The elie$ o$ the ancient !roletariat, like that o$ the modern, was more roust and sim!le, less
haut go-t. The 2hristian !ro!agandism a!!ealed to its heart, not to its mind% to its eternal
as!irations, its necessities, its su$$erings, its sla)ery, not to its reason, which still sle!t and
there$ore could know nothing aout logical contradictions and the e)idence o$ the asurd. 5t was
interested solely in knowing when the hour o$ !romised deli)erance would strike, when the
kingdom o$ God would come. (s $or theological dogmas, it did not troule itsel$ aout them
ecause it understood nothing aout them The !roletariat con)erted to 2hristianity constituted its
growing material ut not its intellectual strength.
(s $or the 2hristian dogmas, it is known that they were elaorated in a series o$ theological and
literary works and in the 2ouncils, !rinci!ally y the con)erted neo+&latonists o$ the 1rient. The
Greek mind had $allen so low that, in the $ourth century o$ the 2hristian era, the !eriod o$ the
$irst 2ouncil, the idea o$ a !ersonal God, !ure, eternal, asolute mind, creator and su!reme
master, e'isting outside o$ the world, was unanimously acce!ted y the 2hurch 7athers% as a
logical consequence o$ this asolute asurdity, it then ecame natural and necessary to elie)e in
the immateriality and immortality o$ the human soul, lodged and im!risoned in a ody only
!artially mortal, there eing in this ody itsel$ a !ortion which, while material is immortal like
the soul, and must e resurrected with it. We see how di$$icult it was, e)en $or the 2hurch
7athers% to concei)e !ure minds outside o$ any material $orm. 5t should e added that, in general,
it is the character o$ e)ery meta!hysical and theological argument to seek to e'!lain one
asurdity y another.
5t was )ery $ortunate $or 2hristianity that it met a world o$ sla)es. 5t had another !iece o$ good
luck in the in)asion o$ the Bararians. The latter were worthy !eo!le, $ull o$ natural $orce, and,
ao)e all, urged on y a great necessity o$ li$e and a great ca!acity $or it% rigands who had stood
e)ery test, ca!ale o$ de)astating and goling u! anything, like their successors, the Germans
o$ today% ut they were much less systematic and !edantic than these last, much less moralistic,
less learned, and on the other hand much more inde!endent and !roud, ca!ale o$ science and
not inca!ale o$ lierty, as are the ourgeois o$ modern Germany. But, in s!ite o$ all their great
qualities, they were nothing ut ararians + that is, as indi$$erent to all questions o$ theology and
meta!hysics as the ancient sla)es, a great numer o$ whom, moreo)er, elonged to their race. So
that, their !ractical re!ugnance once o)ercome, it was not di$$icult to con)ert them theoretically
to 2hristianity.
7or ten centuries 2hristianity, armed with the omni!otence o$ 2hurch and State and o!!osed y
no com!etition, was ale to de!ra)e, dease, and $alsi$y the mind o$ -uro!e 5t had no
com!etitors, ecause outside o$ the 2hurch there were neither thinkers nor educated !ersons. 5t
alone though,, it alone s!oke and wrote, it alone taught. Though heresies arose in its osom, they
a$$ected only the theological or !ractical de)elo!ments o$ the $undamental dogma ne)er that
dogma itsel$. The elie$ in God, !ure s!irit and creator o$ the world, and the elie$ in the
immateriality o$ the soul remained untouched. This doule elie$ ecame the ideal asis o$ the
whole 1ccidental and 1riental ci)ili,ation o$ -uro!e% it !enetrated and ecame incarnate in all
the institutions, all the details o$ the !ulic and !ri)ate li$e o$ all classes, and the masses as well.
($ter that, is it sur!rising that this elie$ has li)ed until the !resent day, continuing to e'ercise its
disastrous in$luence e)en u!on select minds, such as those o$ <a,,ini, <ichelet, Duinet, and so
many others? We ha)e seen that the $irst attack u!on it came $rom the renaissance% o$ the $ree
mind in the $i$teenth century, which !roduced heroes and martyrs like ?anini, Giordano Bruno,
and Galileo. (lthough drowned in the noise, tumult, and !assions o$ the 3e$ormation, it
noiselessly continued its in)isile work, equeathing to the nolest minds o$ each generation its
task o$ human emanci!ation y the destruction o$ the asurd, until at last, in the latter hal$ o$ the
eighteenth century, it again rea!!eared in road day, oldly wa)ing the $lag o$ atheism and
materialism.
The human mind, then, one might ha)e su!!osed, was at last aout to deli)er itsel$ $rom all the
di)ine osessions. 6ot at all. The di)ine $alsehood u!on which humanity had een $eeding $or
eighteen centuries 8s!eaking o$ 2hristianity only9 was once more to show itsel$ more !ower$ul
than human truth. 6o longer ale to make use o$ the lack trie, o$ the ra)ens consecrated y the
2hurch, o$ the 2atholic or &rotestant !riests, all con$idence in whom had een lost, it made use
o$ lay !riests, short+roed liars and so!hists. among whom the !rinci!al rIles de)ol)ed u!on two
$atal men, one the $alsest mind, the other the most doctrinally des!otic will, o$ the last century +
.. .. 3ousseau and 3oes!ierre.
The $irst is the !er$ect ty!e o$ narrowness and sus!icious meanness, o$ e'altation without other
o/ect than his own !erson, o$ cold enthusiasm and hy!ocrisy at once sentimental and
im!lacale, o$ the $alsehood o$ modern idealism. 0e may e considered as the real creator o$
modern reaction. To all a!!earance the most democratic writer o$ the eighteenth century, he red
within himsel$ the !itiless des!otism o$ the statesman. 0e was the !ro!het o$ the doctrinaire
State, as 3oes!ierre, his worthy and $aith$ul disci!le, tried to ecome its high !riest. 0a)ing
heard the saying o$ ?oltaire that, i$ God did not e'ist, it would e necessary to in)ent him, .. ..
3ousseau in)ented the Su!reme Being, the astract and sterile God o$ the deists. (nd 5t was in
the name o$ the Su!reme Being, and o$ the hy!ocritical )irtue commanded y this Su!reme
Being, that 3oes!ierre guillotined $irst the 0Hertists and then the )ery genius o$ the
3e)olution, Banton, in whose !erson he assassinated the 3e!ulic, thus !re!aring the way $or
the thence$orth necessary trium!h o$ the dictatorshi! o$ Bona!arte 5. ($ter this great trium!h, the
idealistic reaction sought and $ound ser)ants less $anatical, less terrile nearer to the diminished
stature o$ the actual ourgeoisie. 5n 7rance, 2hateauriand, ;amartine, and + shall 5 say it? Why
not? (ll must e said i$ it is truth + ?ictor 0ugo himsel$, the democrat, the re!ulican, the quasi+
socialist o$ today4 and a$ter them the whole melancholy and sentimental com!any o$ !oor and
!allid minds who, under the leadershi! o$ these masters, estalished the modern romantic school
in Germany, the Schlegels, the Tiecks, the 6o)alis, the Werners, the Schellings, and so many
others esides, whose names do not e)en deser)e to e recalled.
The literature created y this school was the )ery reign o$ ghosts and !hantoms. 5t could not
stand the sunlight% the twilight alone !ermitted it to li)e. 6o more could it stand the rutal
contact o$ the masses. 5t was the literature o$ the tender, delicate, distinguished souls, as!iring to
hea)en, and li)ing on earth as i$ in s!ite o$ themsel)es. 5t had a horror and contem!t $or the
!olitics and questions o$ the day% ut when !erchance it re$erred to them, it showed itsel$ $rankly
reactionary, took the side o$ the 2hurch against the insolence o$ the $reethinkers, o$ the kings
against the !eo!les, and o$ all the aristocrats against the )ile rale o$ the streets. 7or the rest, as
5 ha)e /ust said, the dominant $eature o$ the school o$ romanticism was a quasi+com!lete
indi$$erence to !olitics. (mid the clouds in which it li)ed could e distinguished two real !oints +
the ra!id de)elo!ment o$ ourgeois materialism and the ungo)ernale outurst o$ indi)idual
)anities.
To understand this romantic literature, the reason $or its e'istence must e sought in the
trans$ormation which had een e$$ected in the osom o$ the ourgeois class since the re)olution
o$ 17J>.
7rom the 3enaissance and the 3e$ormation down to the 3e)olution, the ourgeoisie, i$ not in
Germany, at least in 5taly, in 7rance, in Swit,erland, in -ngland, in 0olland, was the hero and
re!resentati)e o$ the re)olutionary genius o$ history. 7rom its osom s!rang most o$ the
$reethinkers o$ the $i$teenth century, the religious re$ormers o$ the two $ollowing centuries, and
the a!ostles o$ human emanci!ation, including this time those o$ Germany, o$ the !ast century. 5t
alone, naturally su!!orted y the !ower$ul arm o$ the !eo!le, who had $aith in it, made the
re)olution o$ 178J and EJ>. 5t !roclaimed the down$all o$ royalty and o$ the 2hurch, the
$raternity o$ the !eo!les, the rights o$ man and o$ the citi,en. Those are its titles to glory% they are
immortal4
Soon it s!lit. ( considerale !ortion o$ the !urchasers o$ national !ro!erty ha)ing ecome rich,
and su!!orting themsel)es no longer on the !roletariat o$ the cities, ut on the ma/or !ortion o$
the !easants o$ 7rance, these also ha)ing ecome landed !ro!rietors, had no as!iration le$t ut
$or !eace, the re+estalishment o$ !ulic order, and the $oundation o$ a strong and regular
go)ernment. 5t there$ore welcomed with /oy the dictatorshi! o$ the $irst Bona!arte, and, although
always ?oltairean, did not )iew with dis!leasure the 2oncordat with the &o!e and the re+
estalishment o$ the o$$icial 2hurch in 7rance* :.eligion is so necessary to the people/: Which
means that, satiated themsel)es, this !ortion o$ the ourgeoisie then egan to see that it was
need$ul to the maintenance o$ their situation and the !reser)ation o$ their newly+acquired estates
to a!!ease the unsatis$ied hunger o$ the !eo!le y !romises o$ hea)enly manna. Then it was that
2hateauriand egan to !reach. [9]
6a!oleon $ell and the 3estoration rought ack into 7rance the legitimate monarchy, and with it
the !ower o$ the 2hurch and o$ the noles, who regained, i$ not the whole, at least a considerale
!ortion o$ their $ormer in$luence. This reaction threw the ourgeoisie ack into the 3e)olution,
and with the re)olutionary s!irit that o$ sce!ticism also was re+awakened in it. 5t set
2hateauriand aside and egan to read ?oltaire again% ut it did not go so $ar as Biderot* its
deilitated ner)es could not stand nourishment so strong. ?oltaire, on the contrary, at once a
$reethinker and a deist, suited it )ery well. BHranger and &. ;. 2ourier e'!ressed this new
tendency !er$ectly. The God o$ the good !eo!le: and the ideal o$ the ourgeois king, at once
lieral and democratic, sketched against the ma/estic and thence$orth ino$$ensi)e ackground o$
the -m!ireEs gigantic )ictories such was at that !eriod the daily intellectual $ood o$ the
ourgeoisie o$ 7rance.
;amartine, to e sure, e'cited y a )ain and ridiculously en)ious desire to rise to the !oetic
height o$ the great Byron, had egun his coldly delirious hymns in honour o$ the God o$ the
noles and o$ the legitimate monarchy. But his songs resounded only in aristocratic salons. The
ourgeoisie did not hear them. BHranger was its !oet and 2ourier was its !olitical writer.
The re)olution o$ .uly resulted in li$ting its tastes. We know that e)ery ourgeois in 7rance
carries within him the im!erishale ty!e o$ the ourgeois gentleman, a ty!e which ne)er $ails to
a!!ear immediately the !ar)enu acquires a little wealth and !ower. 5n 18>K the wealthy
ourgeoisie had de$initely re!laced the old noility in the seats o$ !ower. 5t naturally tended to
estalish a new aristocracy. (n aristocracy o$ ca!ital $irst o$ all, ut also an aristocracy o$
intellect, o$ good manners and delicate sentiments. 5t egan to $eel religious.
This was not on its !art sim!ly an a!ing o$ aristocratic customs. 5t was also a necessity o$ its
!osition. The !roletariat had rendered it a $inal ser)ice in once more aiding it to o)erthrow the
noility. The ourgeoisie now had no $urther need o$ its co+o!eration, $or it $elt itsel$ $irmly
seated in the shadow o$ the throne o$ .uly, and the alliance with the !eo!le, thence$orth useless,
egan to ecome incon)enient. 5t was necessary to remand it to its !lace, which naturally could
not e done without !ro)oking great indignation among the masses. 5t ecame necessary to
restrain this indignation. 5n the name o$ what? 5n the name o$ the ourgeois interest luntly
con$essed ? That would ha)e een much too cynical. The more un/ust and inhuman an interest is,
the greater need it has o$ sanction. 6ow, where $ind it i$ not in religion, that good !rotectress o$
al 5 the well+$ed and the use$ul consoler o$ the hungry? (nd more than e)er the trium!hant
ourgeoisie saw that religion was indis!ensale to the !eo!le.
($ter ha)ing won all its titles to glory in religious, !hiloso!hical, and !olitical o!!osition, in
!rotest and in re)olution, it at last ecame the dominant class and therey e)en the de$ender and
!reser)er o$ the State, thence$orth the regular institution o$ the e'clusi)e !ower o$ that class. The
State is $orce, and $or it, $irst o$ all, is the right o$ $orce, the trium!hant argument o$ the needle+
gun, o$ the chassepot. But man is so singularly constituted that this argument, wholly eloquent as
it may a!!ear, is not su$$icient in the long run. Some moral sanction or other is asolutely
necessary to en$orce his res!ect. 7urther, this sanction must e at once so sim!le and so !lain that
it may con)ince the masses, who, a$ter ha)ing een reduced y the !ower o$ the State. must also
e 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, ut also the most di$$icult to ado!t + ecause it im!lies the
aolition o$ the State, or, in other words, the aolition o$ the organised !olitical e'!loitation o$
the ma/ority y any minority whatsoe)er + would e the direct and com!lete satis$action o$ the
needs and as!irations o$ the !eo!le, which would e equi)alent to the com!lete liquidation o$ the
!olitical and economical e'istence o$ the ourgeois class, or, again, to the aolition o$ the State.
Bene$icial means $or the masses, ut detrimental to ourgeois interests% hence it is useless to talk
aout them.
The only way, on the contrary, harm$ul only to the !eo!le, !recious in its sal)ation o$ ourgeois
!ri)ileges, is no other than religion. That is the eternal mirage% which leads away the masses in a
search $or di)ine treasures, while much more reser)ed, the go)erning class contents itsel$ with
di)iding among all its memers + )ery unequally, moreo)er and always gi)ing most to him who
!ossesses most + the miserale goods o$ earth and the !lunder taken $rom the !eo!le, including
their !olitical and social lierty.
There is not, there cannot e, a State without religion. Take the $reest States in the world + the
"nited States o$ (merica or the Swiss 2on$ederation, $or instance + and see what an im!ortant
!art is !layed in all o$$icial discourses y di)ine &ro)idence, that su!reme sanction o$ all States.
But whene)er a chie$ o$ State s!eaks o$ God, e he Wil1iam 5., the Cnouto+Germanic em!eror,
or Grant, the !resident o$ the great re!ulic, e sure that he is getting ready to shear once more
his !eo!le+$lock.
The 7rench lieral and ?oltairean ourgeoisie, dri)en y tem!erament to a !ositi)ism 8not to say
a materialism9 singularly narrow and rutal, ha)ing ecome the go)erning class o$ the State y
its trium!h o$ 18>K, had to gi)e itsel$ an o$$icial religion. 5t was not an easy thing. The
ourgeoisie could not aru!tly go ack under the yoke o$ 3oman 2atholicism. Between it and
the 2hurch o$ 3ome was an ayss o$ lood and hatred, and, howe)er !ractical and wise one
ecomes, it is ne)er !ossile to re!ress a !assion de)elo!ed y history. <oreo)er, the 7rench
ourgeoisie would ha)e co)ered itsel$ with ridicule i$ it had gone ack to the 2hurch to take !art
in the !ious ceremonies o$ its worshi!, an essential condition o$ a meritorious and sincere
con)ersion. Se)eral attem!ted it, it is true, ut their heroism was rewarded y no other result
than a $ruitless scandal. 7inally, a return to 2atholicism was im!ossile on account o$ the
insol)ale contradiction which se!arates the in)ariale !olitics o$ 3ome $rom the de)elo!ment
o$ the economical and !olitical interests o$ the middle class.
5n this res!ect &rotestantism is much more ad)antageous. 5t is the ourgeois religion par
e"cellence. 5t accords /ust as much lierty as is necessary to the ourgeois, and $inds a way o$
reconciling celestial as!irations with the res!ect which terrestrial conditions demand.
2onsequently it is es!ecially in &rotestant countries that commerce and industry ha)e een
de)elo!ed. But it was im!ossile $or the 7rench ourgeoisie to ecome &rotestant. To !ass $rom
one religion to another + unless it e done delierately, as sometimes in the case o$ the .ews o$
3ussia and &oland, who get a!tised three or $our times in order to recei)e each time the
remuneration allowed them + to seriously change oneEs religion, a little $aith is necessary. 6ow, in
the e'clusi)e !ositi)e heart o$ the 7rench ourgeois there is no room $or $aith. 0e !ro$esses the
most !ro$ound indi$$erence $or all questions which touch neither his !ocket $irst nor his social
)anity a$terwards. 0e is as indi$$erent to &rotestantism as to 2atholicism. 1n the other hand, the
7rench ourgeois could not go o)er to &rotestantism without !utting himsel$ in con$lict with the
2atholic routine o$ the ma/ority o$ the 7rench !eo!le, which would ha)e een great im!rudence
on the !art o$ a class !retending 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. But that would ha)e led too $ar. So the ourgeoisie was oliged, in order to
sanction its new State, to create a new religion which might e oldly !roclaimed, without too
much ridicule and scandal, y the whole ourgeois class.
Thus was orn doctrinaire Beism.
1thers ha)e told, much etter than 5 could tell it, the story o$ the irth and de)elo!ment o$ this
school, which had so decisi)e and + we may well add + so $atal an in$luence on the !olitical,
intellectual, and moral education o$ the ourgeois youth o$ 7rance. 5t dates $rom Ben/amin
2onstant and <adame de StaLl% its real $ounder was 3oyer+2ollard% its a!ostles, Gui,ot, 2ousin,
?illemain, and many others. 5ts oldly a)owed o/ect was the reconciliation o$ 3e)olution with
3eaction, or, to use the language o$ the school, o$ the !rinci!le o$ lierty with that o$ authority,
and naturally to the ad)antage o$ the latter.
This reconciliation signi$ied* in !olitics, the taking away o$ !o!ular lierty $or the ene$it o$
ourgeois rule, re!resented y the monarchical and constitutional State% in !hiloso!hy, the
delierate sumission o$ $ree reason to the eternal !rinci!les o$ $aith. We ha)e only to deal here
with the latter.
We know that this !hiloso!hy was s!ecially elaorated y <. 2ousin, the $ather o$ 7rench
eclecticism. ( su!er$icial and !edantic talker, inca!ale o$ any original conce!tion, o$ any idea
!eculiar to himsel$, ut )ery strong on common!lace, which he con$ounded with common sense,
this illustrious !hiloso!her learnedly !re!ared, $or the use o$ the studious youth o$ 7rance, a
meta!hysical dish o$ his own making the use o$ which, made com!ulsory in all schools o$ the
State under the "ni)ersity, condemned se)eral generations one a$ter the other to a cereral
indigestion. 5magine a !hiloso!hical )inegar sauce o$ the most o!!osed systems, a mi'ture o$
7athers o$ the 2hurch, scholastic !hiloso!hers, Bescartes and &ascal, Cant and Scotch
!sychologists all this a su!erstructure on the di)ine and innate ideas o$ &lato, and co)ered u!
with a layer o$ 0egelian immanence accom!anied, o$ course, y an ignorance, as contem!tuous
as it is com!lete, o$ natural science, and !ro)ing /ust as two times two make five% the e'istence o$
a !ersonal God.....
Footnotes
[9] 5t seems to me use$ul to recall at this !oint an anecdote + one, y the way, well known and
thoroughly authentic + which sheds a )ery clear light on the !ersonal )alue o$ this warmed+o)er
o$ the 2atholic elie$s and on the religious sincerity o$ that !eriod. 2hateauriand sumitted to a
!ulisher a work attacking $aith. The !ulisher called his attention to the $act that atheism had
gone out o$ $ashion, that the reading !ulic cared no more $or it, and that the demand, on the
contrary, was $or religious works. 2hateauriand withdrew, ut a $ew months later came ack
with his Genius of Christianity.