what is property-第79部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



I　reply：　　Absolute　property　in　land　and　tools　hinders　human　activity；　and　obstructs　progress　and　the　free　development　of　man。

What　happened　in　Rome；　and　in　all　the　ancient　nations？　　What　occurred　in　the　middle　ages？　　What　do　we　see　to…day　in　England；　in　consequence　of　absolute　property　in　the　sources　of　production？

The　suicide　of　humanity。

2。　Real　and　personal　property　is　in　harmony　with　the　social　interest。　　In　consequence　of　literary　property；　social　and　individual　interests　are　perpetually　in　conflict。

The　statement　of　this　proposition　contains　a　rhetorical　figure；　common　with　those　who　do　not　enjoy　full　and　complete　liberty　of　speech。　　This　figure　is　the　_anti…phrasis_　or　_contre…verite_。　　It　consists；　according　to　Dumarsais　and　the　best　humanists；　in　saying　one　thing　while　meaning　another。　　M。　Wolowski's　proposition；　naturally　expressed；　would　read　as　follows：　　〃Just　as　real　and　personal　property　is　essentially　hostile　to　society；　so；　in　consequence　of　literary　property；　social　and　individual　interests　are　perpetually　in　conflict。〃

3。　M。　de　Montalembert；　in　the　Chamber　of　Peers；　vehemently　protested　against　the　assimilation　of　authors　to　inventors　of　machinery；　an　assimilation　which　he　claimed　to　be　injurious　to　the　former。　　M。　Wolowski　replies；　that　the　rights　of　authors；　without　machinery；　would　be　nil；　that；　without　paper…mills；　type　foundries；　and　printing…offices；　there　could　be　no　sale　of　verse　and　prose；　that　many　a　mechanical　invention；the　compass；　for　instance；　the　telescope；　or　the　steam…engine；is　quite　as　valuable　as　a　book。

Prior　to　M。　Montalembert；　M。　Charles　Comte　had　laughed　at　the　inference　in　favor　of　mechanical　inventions；　which　logical　minds　never　fail　to　draw　from　the　privileges　granted　to　authors。　　〃He；〃　says　M。　Comte；　〃who　first　conceived　and　executed　the　idea　of　transforming　a　piece　of　wood　into　a　pair　of　sabots；　or　an　animal's　hide　into　a　pair　of　sandals；　would　thereby　have　acquired　an　exclusive　right　to　make　shoes　for　the　human　race！〃　　Undoubtedly；　under　the　system　of　property。　　For；　in　fact；　this　pair　of　sabots；　over　which　you　make　so　merry；　is　the　creation　of　the　shoemaker；　the　work　of　his　genius；　the　expression　of　his　thought；　to　him　it　is　his　poem；　quite　as　much　as　〃Le　Roi　s'amuse；〃　is　M。　Victor　Hugo's　drama。　　Justice　for　all　alike。　　If　you　refuse　a　patent　to　a　perfecter　of　boots；　refuse　also　a　privilege　to　a　maker　of　rhymes。

4。　That　which　gives　importance　to　a　book　is　a　fact　external　to　the　author　and　his　work。　　Without　the　intelligence　of　society；　without　its　development；　and　a　certain　community　of　ideas；　passions；　and　interests　between　it　and　the　authors；　the　works　of　the　latter　would　be　worth　nothing。　　The　exchangeable　value　of　a　book　is　due　even　more　to　the　SOCIAL　CONDITION　than　to　the　talent　displayed　in　it。

Indeed；　it　seems　as　if　I　were　copying　my　own　words。　　This　proposition　of　M。　Wolowski　contains　a　special　expression　of　a　general　and　absolute　idea；　one　of　the　strongest　and　most　conclusive　against　the　right　of　property。　　Why　do　artists；　like　mechanics；　find　the　means　to　live？　　Because　society　has　made　the　fine　arts；　like　the　rudest　industries；　objects　of　consumption　and　exchange；　governed　consequently　by　all　the　laws　of　commerce　and　political　economy。　　Now；　the　first　of　these　laws　is　the　equipoise　of　functions；　that　is；　the　equality　of　associates。

5。　M。　Wolowski　indulges　in　sarcasm　against　the　petitioners　for　literary　property。　　〃There　are　authors；〃　he　says；　〃who　crave　the　privileges　of　authors；　and　who　for　that　purpose　point　out　the　power　of　the　melodrama。　　They　speak　of　the　niece　of　Corneille；　begging　at　the　door　of　a　theatre　which　the　works　of　her　uncle　had　enriched。　。　。　。　　To　satisfy　the　avarice　of　literary　people；　it　would　be　necessary　to　create　literary　majorats；　and　make　a　whole　code　of　exceptions。〃

I　like　this　virtuous　irony。　　But　M。　Wolowski　has　by　no　means　exhausted　the　difficulties　which　the　question　involves。　　And　first；　is　it　just　that　MM。　Cousin；　Guizot；　Villemain；　Damiron；　and　company；　paid　by　the　State　for　delivering　lectures；　should　be　paid　a　second　time　through　the　booksellers？that　I；　who　have　the　right　to　report　their　lectures；　should　not　have　the　right　to　print　them？　　Is　it　just　that　MM。　Noel　and　Chapsal；　overseers　of　the　University；　should　use　their　influence　in　selling　their　selections　from　literature　to　the　youth　whose　studies　they　are　instructed　to　superintend　in　consideration　of　a　salary？　　And；　if　that　is　not　just；　is　it　not　proper　to　refuse　literary　property　to　every　author　holding　public　offices；　and　receiving　pensions　or　sinecures？

Again；　shall　the　privilege　of　the　author　extend　to　irreligious　and　immoral　works；　calculated　only　to　corrupt　the　heart；　and　obscure　the　understanding？　　To　grant　this　privilege　is　to　sanction　immorality　by　law；　to　refuse　it　is　to　censure　the　author。　　And　since　it　is　impossible；　in　the　present　imperfect　state　of　society；　to　prevent　all　violations　of　the　moral　law；　it　will　be　necessary　to　open　a　license…office　for　books　as　well　as　morals。　　But；　then；　three…fourths　of　our　literary　people　will　be　obliged　to　register；　and；　recognized　thenceforth　on　their　own　declaration　as　PROSTITUTES；　they　will　necessarily　belong　to　the　public。　　We　pay　toll　to　the　prostitute；　we　do　not　endow　her。

Finally；　shall　plagiarism　be　classed　with　forgery？　　If　you　reply　〃Yes；〃　you　appropriate　in　advance　all　the　subjects　of　which　books　treat；　if　you　say　〃No；〃　you　leave　the　whole　matter　to　the　decision　of　the　judge。　　Except　in　the　case　of　a　clandestine　reprint；　how　will　he　distinguish　forgery　from　quotation；　imitation；　plagiarism；　or　even　coincidence？　　A　savant　spends　two　years　in　calculating　a　table　of　logarithms　to　nine　or　ten　decimals。　　He　prints　it。　　A　fortnight　after　his　book　is　selling　at　half…price；　it　is　impossible　to　tell　whether　this　result　is　due　to　forgery　or　competition。　　What　shall　the　court　do？　　In　case　of　doubt；　shall　it　award　the　property　to　the　first　occupant？　　As　well　decide　the　question　by　lot。

These；　however；　are　trifling　considerations；　but　do　we　see　that；　in　granting　a　perpetual　privilege　to　authors　and　their　heirs；　we　really　strike　a　fatal　blow　at　their　interests？　　We　think　to　make　booksellers　dependent　upon　authors；a　delusion。　　The　booksellers　will　unite　against　works；　and　their　proprietors。　　Against　works；　by　refusing　to　push　their　sale；　by　replacing　them　with　poor　imitations；　by　reproducing　them　in　a　hundred　indirect　ways；　and　no　one　knows　how　far　the　science　of　plagiarism；　and　skilful　imitation　may　be　carried。　　Against　proprietors。　　Are　we　ignorant　of　the　fact；　that　a　demand　for　a　dozen　copies　enables　a　bookseller　to　sell　a　thousand；　that　with　an　edition　of　five　hundred　he　can　supply　a　kingdom　for　thirty　years？　　What　will　the　poor　authors　do　in　the　presence　of　this　omnipotent　union　of　booksellers？　　I　will　tell　them　what　they　will　do。　　They　will　enter　the　employ　of　those　whom　they　now　treat　as　pirates；　and；　to　secure　an　advantage；　they　will　become　wage　laborers。　　A　fit　reward　for　ignoble　avarice；　and　insatiable　pride。＇1＇

＇1＇　　The　property　fever　is　at　its　height　among　writers　and　artists；　and　it　is　curious　to　see　the　complacency　with　which　our　legislators　and　men　of　letters　cherish　this　devouring　passion。　　An　artist　sells　a　picture；　and　then；　the　merchandise　delivered；　assumes　to　prevent　the　purchaser　from　selling　engravings；　under　the　pretext　that　he；　the　painter；　in　selling　the　original；　has　not　sold　his　DESIGN。　　A　dispute　arises　between　the　amateur　and　the　artist　in　regard　to　both　the　fact　and　the　law。　　M。　Villemain；　the　Minister　of　Public　Instruction；　being　consulted　as　to　this　particular　case；　finds　that　the　painter　is　right；　only　the　property　in　the　design　should　have　been　specially　reserved　in　the　contract：　so　that；　in　reality；　M。　Villemain　recognizes　in　the　artist　a　power　to　surrender　his　work　and　prevent　its　communication；　thus　contradicting　the　legal　axiom；　One　CANNOT　GIVE　AND　KEEP　AT　THE　SAME　TIME。　　A　strange　reasoner　is　M。　Villemain！　　An　ambiguous　principle　leads　to　a　false　conclusion。　　Instead　of　rejecting　the　principle；　M。　Villemain　hastens　to　admit　the　conclusion。　　With　him　the　_reductio　ad　absurdum_　is　a　convincing　argument。　　Thus　he　is　made　official　defender　of　literary　property；　sure　of　being　understood　and　sustained　by　a　set　of　loafers；　the　disgrace　of　literature　and　the　plague　of　public　morals。　　Why；　then；　does　M。　Villemain　feel　so　strong　an　interest　in　setting　himself　up　as　the　chief　of　the　literary　classes；　in　playing　for　their　benefit　the　role　of　Trissotin　in　the　councils　of　the　State；　and　in　becoming　the　accomplice　and　associate　of　a　band　of　profligates；_soi…disant_　men　of　letters；who　for　more　than　ten　years　have　labored　with　such　deplorable　success　to　ruin　public　spirit；　and　corrupt　the　heart　by　warping　the　mind？

Contradictions　of　contradictions！〃　　Genius　is　the　great　leveller　of　the　world；〃　cries　M。　de　Lamartine；　〃then　genius　should　be　a　proprietor。　　Literary　property　is　the　fortune　of　democracy。〃　　This　unfortunate　poet　thinks　himself　profound　when　he　is　only　puffed　up。　　His　eloquence　consists　solely　in　coupling　ideas　which　clash　with　each　other：　ROUND　SQUARE；　DARK　SUN；　FALLEN　ANGEL；　PRIEST　and　LOVE；　THOUGHT　and　POETRY；　GUNIUS　｛？？？｝；　and　FORTUNE；　LEVELING　and　PROPERTY。　　Let　us　tell　him；　in　reply；　that　his　mind　is　a　dark　luminary；　that　each　of　his　discourses　is　a　disordered　harmony；　and　that　all　his　successes；　whether　in　verse　or　prose；　are　due　to　the　use　of　the　extraordinary　in　the　treatment　of　the　most　ordinary　subjects。

〃Le　National；〃　in　reply　to　the　report　of　M。　Lamartine；　endeavors　to　prove　that　literary　property　is　of　quite　a　different　nature　from　landed　property；　as　if　the　nature　of　the　right　of　property　depended　on　the　object　to　which　it　is　applied；　and　not　on　the　mode　of　its　exercise　and　the　condition　of　its　existence。　　But　the　main　object　of　〃Le　National〃　is　to　please　a　class　of　proprietors　whom　an　extension　of　the　right　of　property　vexes：　that　is　why　〃Le　National〃　opposes　literary　property。　　Will　it　tell　us；　once　for　all；　whether　it　is　for　equality　or　against　it？

　


6。　OBJECTION。Property　in　occupied　land　passes　to　the　heirs　of　the　occupant。　　〃Why；〃　say　the　authors；　〃should　not　the　work　of　genius　pass　in　like　manner　to　the　heirs　of　the　man　of　genius？〃　　M。　Wolowsk