what is property-第87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！


；　and　should　complain；first；　because　such　eulogies　are　never　deserved；　and；　second；　because　they　furnish　a　bad　example。　　But　I　wish；　in　order　to　reconcile　you　to　equality；　to　measure　for　you　the　greatest　literary　personage　of　our　century。　　Do　not　accuse　me　of　envy；　proletaires；　if　I；　a　defender　of　equality；　estimate　at　their　proper　value　talents　which　are　universally　admired；　and　which　I；　better　than　any　one；　know　how　to　recognize。　　A　dwarf　can　always　measure　a　giant：　all　that　he　needs　is　a　yardstick。

You　have　seen　the　pretentious　announcements　of　〃L'Esquisse　d'une　Philosophie；〃　and　you　have　admired　the　work　on　trust；　for　either　you　have　not　read　it；　or；　if　you　have；　you　are　incapable　of　judging　it。　　Acquaint　yourselves；　then；　with　this　speculation　more　brilliant　than　sound；　and；　while　admiring　the　enthusiasm　of　the　author；　cease　to　pity　those　useful　labors　which　only　habit　and　the　great　number　of　the　persons　engaged　in　them　render　contemptible。　　I　shall　be　brief；　for；　notwithstanding　the　importance　of　the　subject　and　the　genius　of　the　author；　what　I　have　to　say　is　of　but　little　moment。

M。　Lamennais　starts　with　the　existence　of　God。　　How　does　he　demonstrate　it？　　By　Cicero's　argument；that　is；　by　the　consent　of　the　human　race。　　There　is　nothing　new　in　that。　　We　have　still　to　find　out　whether　the　belief　of　the　human　race　is　legitimate；　or；　as　Kant　says；　whether　our　subjective　certainty　of　the　existence　of　God　corresponds　with　the　objective　truth。　　This；　however；　does　not　trouble　M。　Lamennais。　　He　says　that；　if　the　human　race　believes；　it　is　because　it　has　a　reason　for　believing。

Then；　having　pronounced　the　name　of　God；　M。　Lamennais　sings　a　hymn；　and　that　is　his　demonstration！

This　first　hypothesis　admitted；　M。　Lamennais　follows　it　with　a　second；　namely；　that　there　are　three　persons　in　God。　　But；　while　Christianity　teaches　the　dogma　of　the　Trinity　only　on　the　authority　of　revelation；　M。　Lamennais　pretends　to　arrive　at　it　by　the　sole　force　of　argument；　and　he　does　not　perceive　that　his　pretended　demonstration　is；　from　beginning　to　end；　anthropomorphism；that　is；　an　ascription　of　the　faculties　of　the　human　mind　and　the　powers　of　nature　to　the　Divine　substance。　　New　songs；　new　hymns！

God　and　the　Trinity　thus　DEMONSTRATED；　the　philosopher　passes　to　the　creation；a　third　hypothesis；　in　which　M。　Lamennais；　always　eloquent；　varied；　and　sublime；　DEMONSTRATES　that　God　made　the　world　neither　of　nothing；　nor　of　something；　nor　of　himself；　that　he　was　free　in　creating；　but　that　nevertheless　he　could　not　but　create；　that　there　is　in　matter　a　matter　which　is　not　matter；　that　the　archetypal　ideas　of　the　world　are　separated　from　each　other；　in　the　Divine　mind；　by　a　division　which　is　obscure　and　unintelligible；　and　yet　substantial　and　real；　which　involves　intelligibility；　&c。　　We　meet　with　like　contradictions　concerning　the　origin　of　evil。　　To　explain　this　problem；one　of　the　profoundest　in　philosophy；M。　Lamennais　at　one　time　denies　evil；　at　another　makes　God　the　author　of　evil；　and　at　still　another　seeks　outside　of　God　a　first　cause　which　is　not　God；an　amalgam　of　_entites_　more　or　less　incoherent；　borrowed　from　Plato；　Proclus；　Spinoza；　I　might　say　even　from　all　philosophers。

Having　thus　established　his　trinity　of　hypotheses；　M。　Lamennais　deduces　therefrom；　by　a　badly　connected　chain　of　analogies；　his　whole　philosophy。　　And　it　is　here　especially　that　we　notice　the　syncretism　which　is　peculiar　to　him。　　The　theory　of　M。　Lamennais　embraces　all　systems；　and　supports　all　opinions。　　Are　you　a　materialist？　　Suppress；　as　useless　_entites_；　the　three　persons　in　God；　then；　starting　directly　from　heat；　light；　and　electro…　magnetism；which；　according　to　the　author；　are　the　three　original　fluids；　the　three　primary　external　manifestations　of　Will；　Intelligence；　and　Love；you　have　a　materialistic　and　atheistic　cosmogony。　　On　the　contrary；　are　you　wedded　to　spiritualism？　　With　the　theory　of　the　immateriality　of　the　body；　you　are　able　to　see　everywhere　nothing　but　spirits。　　Finally；　if　you　incline　to　pantheism；　you　will　be　satisfied　by　M。　Lamennais；　who　formally　teaches　that　the　world　is　not　an　EMANATION　from　Divinity；which　is　pure　pantheism；but　a　FLOW　of　Divinity。

I　do　not　pretend；　however；　to　deny　that　〃L'Esquisse〃　contains　some　excellent　things；　but；　by　the　author's　declaration；　these　things　are　not　original　with　him；　it　is　the　system　which　is　his。　　That　is　undoubtedly　the　reason　why　M。　Lamennais　speaks　so　contemptuously　of　his　predecessors　in　philosophy；　and　disdains　to　quote　his　originals。　　He　thinks　that；　since　〃L'Esquisse〃　contains　all　true　philosophy；　the　world　will　lose　nothing　when　the　names　and　works　of　the　old　philosophers　perish。　　M。　Lamennais；　who　renders　glory　to　God　in　beautiful　songs；　does　not　know　how　as　well　to　render　justice　to　his　fellows。　　His　fatal　fault　is　this　appropriation　of　knowledge；　which　the　theologians　call　the　PHILOSOPHICAL　SIN；　or　the　SIN　AGAINST　THE　HOLY　GHOSTa　sin　which　will　not　damn　you；　proletaires；　nor　me　either。

In　short；　〃L'Esquisse；〃　judged　as　a　system；　and　divested　of　all　which　its　author　borrows　from　previous　systems；　is　a　commonplace　work；　whose　method　consists　in　constantly　explaining　the　known　by　the　unknown；　and　in　giving　entites　for　abstractions；　and　tautologies　for　proofs。　　Its　whole　theodicy　is　a　work　not　of　genius　but　of　imagination；　a　patching　up　of　neo…Platonic　ideas。　　The　psychological　portion　amounts　to　nothing；　M。　Lamennais　openly　ridiculing　labors　of　this　character；　without　which；　however；　metaphysics　is　impossible。　　The　book；　which　treats　of　logic　and　its　methods；　is　weak；　vague；　and　shallow。　　Finally；　we　find　in　the　physical　and　physiological　speculations　which　M。　Lamennais　deduces　from　his　trinitarian　cosmogony　grave　errors；　the　preconceived　design　of　accommodating　facts　to　theory；　and　the　substitution　in　almost　every　case　of　hypothesis　for　reality。　　The　third　volume　on　industry　and　art　is　the　most　interesting　to　read；　and　the　best。　　It　is　true　that　M。　Lamennais　can　boast　of　nothing　but　his　style。　　As　a　philosopher；　he　has　added　not　a　single　idea　to　those　which　existed　before　him。

Why；　then；　this　excessive　mediocrity　of　M。　Lamennais　considered　as　a　thinker；　a　mediocrity　which　disclosed　itself　at　the　time　of　the　publication　of　the　〃Essai　sur　l'Indifference！〃？　　It　is　because　（remember　this　well；　proletaires！）　　Nature　makes　no　man　truly　complete；　and　because　the　development　of　certain　faculties　almost　always　excludes　an　equal　development　of　the　opposite　faculties；　it　is　because　M。　Lamennais　is　preeminently　a　poet；　a　man　of　feeling　and　sentiment。　　Look　at　his　style；exuberant；　sonorous；　picturesque；　vehement；　full　of　exaggeration　and　invective；and　hold　it　for　certain　that　no　man　possessed　of　such　a　style　was　ever　a　true　metaphysician。　　This　wealth　of　expression　and　illustration；　which　everybody　admires；　becomes　in　M　Lamennais　the　incurable　cause　of　his　philosophical　impotence。　　His　flow　of　language；　and　his　sensitive　nature　misleading　his　imagination；　he　thinks　that　he　is　reasoning　when　he　is　only　repeating　himself；　and　readily　takes　a　description　for　a　logical　deduction。　　Hence　his　horror　of　positive　ideas；　his　feeble　powers　of　analysis；　his　pronounced　taste　for　indefinite　analogies；　verbal　abstractions；　hypothetical　generalities；　in　short；　all　sorts　of　entites。

Further；　the　entire　life　of　M。　Lamennais　is　conclusive　proof　of　his　anti…philosophical　genius。　　Devout　even　to　mysticism；　an　ardent　ultramontane；　an　intolerant　theocrat；　he　at　first　feels　the　double　influence　of　the　religious　reaction　and　the　literary　theories　which　marked　the　beginning　of　this　century；　and　falls　back　to　the　middle　ages　and　Gregory　VII。；　then；　suddenly　becoming　a　progressive　Christian　and　a　democrat；　he　gradually　leans　towards　rationalism；　and　finally　falls　into　deism。　　At　present；　everybody　waits　at　the　trap…door。　　As　for　me；　though　I　would　not　swear　to　it；　I　am　inclined　to　think　that　M。　Lamennais；　already　taken　with　scepticism；　will　die　in　a　state　of　indifference。　　He　owes　to　individual　reason　and　methodical　doubt　this　expiation　of　his　early　essays。

It　has　been　pretended　that　M。　Lamennais；　preaching　now　a　theocracy；　now　universal　democracy；　has　been　always　consistent；　that；　under　different　names；　he　has　sought　invariably　one　and　the　same　thing；unity。　　Pitiful　excuse　for　an　author　surprised　in　the　very　act　of　contradiction！　　What　would　be　thought　of　a　man　who；　by　turns　a　servant　of　despotism　under　Louis　XVI；　a　demagogue　with　Robespierre；　a　courtier　of　the　Emperor；　a　bigot　during　fifteen　years　of　the　Restoration；　a　conservative　since　1830；　should　dare　to　say　that　he　ever　had　wished　for　but　one　thing；public　order？　　Would　he　be　regarded　as　any　the　less　a　renegade　from　all　parties？　　Public　order；　unity；　the　world's　welfare；　social　harmony；　the　union　of　the　nations；concerning　each　of　these　things　there　is　no　possible　difference　of　opinion。　　Everybody　wishes　them；　the　character　of　the　publicist　depends　only　upon　the　means　by　which　he　proposes　to　arrive　at　them。　　But

why　look　to　M。　Lamennais　for　a　steadfastness　of　opinion；　which　he　himself　repudiates？　　Has　he　not　said；　〃The　mind　has　no　law；　that　which　I　believe　to…day；　I　did　not　believe　yesterday；　I　do　not　know　that　I　shall　believe　it　to…morrow〃？

No；　there　is　no　real　superiority　among　men；　since　all　talents　and　capacities　are　combined　never　in　one　individual。　　This　man　has　the　power　of　thought；　that　one　imagination　and　style；　still　another　industrial　and　commercial　capacity。　　By　our　very　nature　and　education；　we　possess　only　special　aptitudes　which　are　limited　and　confined；　and　which　become　consequently　more　necessary　as　they　gain　in　depth　and　strength。　　Capacities　are　to　each　other　as　functions　and　persons；　who　would　dare　to　classify　them　in　ranks？　　The　finest　genius　is；　by　the　laws　of　his　existence　and　development；　the　most　dependent　upon　the　society　which　creates　him。　　Who　would　dare　to　make　a　god　of　the　glorious　child？

〃It　is　not　strength　which　makes　the　man；〃　said　a　Hercules　of　the　market…place　to　the　admiring　crowd；　〃it　is　character。〃　　That　man；　who　had　only　his　muscles；　held　force　in　contempt。　　The　lesson　is　a　good　one；　proletaires；　we　should　profit　by　it。　　It　is　not　talent　（which　is　also　a　force）；　it　is　not　knowledge；　it　is　not　beauty　which　makes　the　man。　　It　is