Category Archives: The Harbinger

Cosmogony — II

 [continued from part I]

Philosophers and superstitious people have given us such absurd ideas of God, that it is no wonder that our age mistakes Him. So far from creating the stars for idleness, he employs them in immense labors of graduated harmony; that is to say, one star elaborates juices for the two orders of creatures above and below itself; it furnishes aromas for its universe which is one degree higher in the scale; it also furnishes them for the men of each planet, although man is of a degree inferior to the star; but all is united in the system of movement, and the different creatures aid one another in every sense. Jupiter, Saturn, &c,, who seem to have no relation with us men, do labor very actively for us. They hold in reserve certain aromas, destined especially for the service of our planet and of us, aromas whose contributions we shall be able to receive, whenever it shall please us to enter into communion with the stars by the organization of Harmony.
The part of these aromas, which is assigned to the service of man, will be consumed in creations of the four kingdoms; at present we have only a creation, of which we should be very weary; for it keeps us in an extreme poverty, obliges us to war incessantly against the atmospheric scourges, against the vices of temperature, against destructive animals and parasitical plants. This is only a provisional outfit, such as could be made with the gross aromas which the planet furnished at its origin.
Each substance of the different kingdoms is the product of an aroma, shed by one of the stars, and combined with that of the planet. The ox is born of an aroma shed by Jupiter; the horse of an aroma shed by Saturn; the rose of an aroma shed by Mercury; the pink of an aroma shed by Hebe, the eighth satellite of Herschel. The operation is nearly the same with that of our gardeners: we sow seeds, which contain a germ that will combine in fermentation with the juices of the earth. Thus, when Jupiter shed upon us the seeds of the ox, they had to be received and elaborated in the bosom of the planet, then thrown out at different points of its surface, where they produced the first herds of oxen.
Thirty thousand plants, which we enjoy, were the product of thirty thousand influxes (co-plantations[1]) received into the earth from different stars. It takes time for the planet to receive and elaborate the germs. The tradition which pretends that the creation was made in six days, would have done better to have estimated the duration of the work at six centuries, at least. It would be no benefit to the planets to have the toil abridged, since it is for them a source of pleasures, a struggle of ambition, of self-love, in which each displays its ability in competition. Each of their products is seen and judged by the other planets. Saturn, the creator of the flea, had to undergo censure upon this object, as well as upon the horse.
If the creations had been achieved in six days, or in six weeks, the planets would soon have been reduced to the negative pleasure of idleness, so praised in our times. Bella cosa far niente, say the Italians. They have reason, so long as Civilization lasts; there is certainly more pleasure in doing nothing, than in toiling excessively, like our peasants and our mechanics, and getting neither bread, nor wine, nor clothing; but the planets, which are bodies constituted in harmony, have as much pleasure and ardour in their labors as the groups which we have described, so that it would be very irksome for them to have nothing to do; there is always something to be created on some one of the thirty-two globes, and especially upon the interior Sun, which has no holiday in this respect. If our globe is excluded for the moment from cooperation in this labor, there remains a vast field for industry in the other stars, of which the cardinals and mixt ought to receive, each, twenty-four creations, besides the pivotal one. As to the moons, they have only twelve creations, and the pivotal. This number should be extended to sixty for the Sun. We may presume, then, that the stars have commonly three or four creations in full labor, and others just commenced or nearly finished. They hasten those which are disagreeable, like the two whose productions we see upon the globe (I will class them hereafter,) and for which the sidereal cohort had to operate upon vitiated or gross aromas; but they are not precipitous with those that are executed upon aromas of a good quality. Hence it comes, that the creations 3 and 4, which will take place in rapid succession upon our globe, soon after the foundation of Harmony, will be accelerated, while the beautiful creation 5 (major transition,) which will commence about 400 years after Harmony, will go on more deliberately.
The creations being the furnishings of the globe, which have to be renewed from time to time, and which are no longer of use after a certain lapse of centuries, every globe, or rather, every monoverse, or human race upon a globe, is free to preserve those of its productions which may be usefully combined with the new furnishings; for example, it is very certain that our globe will retain the horse after the next creation, although that will furnish new species of carriers; but it is doubtful whether it will retain the ass, except as a curiosity, because the said creation will give for the same kind of service porters more agreeable and not so vicious. The ass, by his sobriety, may suit in a society of mendicants and beggars, like the civilizees, who dispute the very bones with the dogs to make soup of them for their citizens; but in a society, in which extreme abundance will reign, and in which the dogs of the court yard will fare better than our mechanics, they will have no farther need of animals in which the useless merit of sobriety will not balance their numerous defects. Hence I presume the asses will be suppressed from the service of Harmony, which, however, will preserve the zebras from this creation, and know how to tame them. For the rest, this is a rough calculation, which may apply to all the animals and plants of little value. As to the asses, I do not pretend that the horoscope of their suppression is a judgment without appeal, for I have no desire to discompose the Brotherhood of Asses, which is said to be numerous and powerful in Civilization.
On the subject of creations, let us dissipate some of the ridiculous prejudices which the civilizees carry into every study relative to movement. I have already remarked upon the absurdity of believing that the creation produced only a single man, a single ass, a single cabbage, a single radish. There is another foolish notion, into which every one thinks it would be irreligious not to fall: it is the attributing to God all the labor of the creations, and supposing that he has left nothing to be done by the creatures themselves, by men, planets, &c. Ask a civilizee: Who created cabbages? He will answer: God.—Well, who created asses?—God.—Did he then create every thing, even men?—Undoubtedly. Who else should have created them?—With this stupid answer, you behold him more learned than they will be in Harmony after a century of studies; for it will require at least that time to disentangle and classify the work of actual creation, which is very complicated, especially in the vegetable kingdom, where about thirty thousand problems of origin present themselves. Some of them I shall resolve in the part which treats of application. Let us reason about this strange prejudice that God has created every thing. It would follow that God is a despot, and the stars legions of drones. I shall follow my custom in such matters, and prepare the mind by a comparison. Let us suppose ourselves in the country, a hundred leagues from the residence of the king, and having the following conversation with a laborer: Who has the care of this grain?—The king.—Ah! well, who planted these vines?—The king.—You are joking! the king, then, has all the work to himself here. Was it he who planted this orchard, this garden?—Without doubt. Who else did?—Who! why the cultivators, you and your neighbors. It is their work!—What audacity! do you not recognize the authority of the king, then?—Certainly; but I do not confound his authority with his functions, which are to watch over and direct the aggregate of the labors of the kingdom, and to distribute them by gradation from ministers to governors, and so down to laborers.—But the king has all power!—Agreed. Nevertheless, if he can do all, he does not do all; he leaves a portion of the work to each of his subjects, he limits himself to governing the whole, and occupying every body as much as possible; and although he has the right to sow and to plant, it was not he who planted your cabbages.—How! you deny the omnipotence of the king! you are a conspirator.—And you are but half-witted. Adieu.
The stupidity of this laborer would be the same with that of the civilizees who pretend that God has created every thing. What would remain for the planet’s to do, if God did every thing? Why does he not come to till and sow our lands and reap our harvests? The act by which thirty two families sow and cultivate their canton, is the same, in the scale of movement, with that by which thirty-two planets elaborate and furnish one of their number with aromal germs, from which a creation springs. The farmers, every year, recommence their operation and vary it in divers ways; and just so the planets, after some interval, say four or five thousand years for our globe, reiterate and vary the work of creation, which furnishes them, as well as men, with the germs of harvests; for the aromas of eatable and other plants which a globe sheds upon different planets, are of a quality proportioned to the perfection of the germs with which it is furnished, as well in the aromal kingdom, as in the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms. All is united in the system of movement. A planet, badly organized in its four kingdoms,[2]is for the other planets, what a wild tree is for us, which bears inedible fruit; it is like a patch of garden covered with bad herbs, and entirely unproductive. Such is our planet, a useless member for the aromal support and for all harmonic intercourse with the others. The other planets are burning with impatience to be able to put ours under cultivation, and re-furnish it with a new creation more profitable for themselves and for us; an effect impossible since the first creation, when the aromas of the globe, still altogether vitiated, made it necessary to adopt the subversive system, or creation in counter-type, which yields the useful products only by way of an infinitely small exception.
I have sufficiently shown that a creation is the concurrent work of all the planets, in which each one intervenes according to its qualities; the details I will give hereafter. I will show by what method we discern the work of each. Till then, if we ask of the civilizees: Who created cabbages? Who created plums? they ought to answer: We know nothing at all about it. We are ignorant of the laws of Aromal movement, of the origin and distribution of the primitive germs. They should beware of answering: It was God who created the plums. He did, without doubt, create the germs or original aromas; they were distributed among the highest beings in the scale, the milliverses, who again divided them amongst the centiverses; these, amongst the deciverses, noniverses, octiverses, down to inverses or universes; these distribute them to the biverses or planets, and these to monoverses or men, who cultivate them. But, if every thing comes from God, it does not follow that God made every thing; and when we see “in the name of the King” on a proclamation, it does not follow that the king made the paper and the paste, that he composed the contents, printed and posted up the placard; but only that every act is made under his supervision and in the name of the royal officers. It is just so with every property and function assigned to the planets; the whole emanates from God through degrees of superior functionaries, who regulate the harmonic manœuvre according to the instructions and primordial will of God; but it is necessary to refer each subaltern operation to the one who has executed it. If they ask you: Who created cabbages? answer: Herschel. And who created plums? The satellites of Herschel, each one modelling according to its dominant passion.
I will not stop to give an aromal catechism after this fashion, which would lead us too far, since the vegetable kingdom alone would furnish thirty thousand questions of origin, and a thousand times more, thirty millions of questions, about the properties and modifications of each vegetable species. What would it be with the other kingdoms? Each of these questions demands studies, researches, upon which I have often run aground after long labor, although I possess the key to this science. I have in vain sought what star has made us a present of the toad; my suspicions rest upon Mars. I have all along limited myself to some few of the most remarkable problems, which will suffice to put naturalists and competent persons upon the track, and open to them a career as new as it is immense, the explanation of the causes and rules of creation, of which thus far they have only studied the effects. Le: us give an instance of this, drawn from the cabbages, or from the plums, since in these vegetables the French are connoisseurs. I continue the aromal catechism, from which I extract a quadrille of hieroglyphics concerning Love.
Who created the Reine-Claude plum? Hebe, the eighth satellite of Herschel, (shedding an aroma in the dominant of fidelity.)
Who created the Golden Drop plum? Cleopatra, a satellite of Herschel (shedding an aroma in the dominant of coquetry.)
Who created the Apricot, the pivotal fruit among plums? Herschel, the Cardinal of Love (shedding the pivotal aroma of matronage.)
Who created the Peach plum, called Brugnon?
Sappho, an ambiguous planet in the Scale of Love (shedding a mixt aroma in the dominants of Sapphism (sentimental love) and Prudery.)
The questions of causes will turn first upon the general plan adopted before creating plums and all the other products which are the work of the different satellites of Herschel. How did they class the characters and functions of Love, represented allegorically by the Apricots and Plums! how did they distribute the different parts among the ten planets of the Scale of Love? how regulate the competency of each to represent such a table of the effects of Love? Why was it ordained that the fruit of Hebe should be green sprinkled with white? that the fruit of Cleopatra should be yellow, touched with a purple spot? How may we be assured that these arrangements were the regular emblems of such a species of Love? Finally, what were the discussions and calculations after which they resolved upon the forms, colors, tastes, and good or bad properties to be distributed among these different fruits, so as faithfully to represent the effects of Love in the human species, whose passions should be depicted in every created object?
On this point, our naturalists will ‘reply that they did not “assist” at the council of amorous allegories held by these gallant planets, before the creation of plums, and that it is for me to render an account of their deliberations, if I was present. Assuredly I was not there: but, as the discoverer of the science by which the causes and rules of creation are determined, I might reply to these various questions. It is enough for me to show the immensity of this new science, which is going to give a soul to all Nature by holding up to us the portraits of our passions, our characters, our perfidies and our duperies, in all the works of Nature, every one of whose products had seemed to us an enigma not to be deciphered. Every veil shall be lifted, if you will only take the trouble to do it, and all studious men will have an ample harvest to gather in.
We are only preluding on this subject, and combating the shameful prejudice, which supposes the universes and their planets plunged in idleness. Of all the injuries which can be done to God, there is none greater than to suppose him the friend and protector of laziness. The author of movement, then, knows how to create only idle worlds! and this is the opinion of a century which boasts of having carried reason to perfection! O nineteenth century! if the kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor in spirit, what an eminent rank must thou occupy in it, as a recompense for thy stupid smartness (bel esprit), which is so different a thing from good understanding! (bon esprit.)
The prejudice, which supposes God to have created every thing, justifies in fact the atheists and materialists; for a creation so vicious in its productions, engendering societies so favorable to vice, gives room for so many recriminations against God, that men are pardonable for doubting his existence rather than attribute this shameful work to him; but if we admit that creatures may create, like God, by employing the germs originally distributed by him, they may commit faults, and the universes in their operations blunder sometimes, as well as our architects and laborers. Think you, our universe, which is yet young, has never committed a mistake? I shall point some out, and you will see that it is not the fault of God if our globe is furnished with so disastrous a creation and afflicted with so many miseries. Neither is it the fault of our thirty-two planets, which have operated as well as possible; but it is the fault of our universe, which acted precipitately and without due consideration in organizing its pivotal system. We shall see hereafter that this folly caused the loss of a cardinal planet of Friendship, which held this seat before our globe, and revolved in the same orbit. The replacing it by our globe gave room for other faults; for always one mistake draws on another. Errors are difficult and slow to repair. The operations of the sidereal vault requiring several thousand years, we have labored for eighteen hundred years past on the operation which is to repair all; I shall speak of it in a special chapter.
Thus far, we conceive that the disorders of the universe ought not to be attributed to God, but to creatures misusing their free will; and in the object which now occupies us, it is the whole sidereal vault, the whole Areopagus of fixed stars, which has committed a fault, with regard to our system and our globe; but if you suppose that God created all, then God alone must be accused, and his universes will be only monuments of despotism, fatalism and indolence. We suppose God like the lion in the fable, who divided the booty into four parts for his associates, and ate all four himself.—Meanwhile, if there is unity in his system, why did he destine man alone to labor, while the superior creatures, the biverses, called planets, and the triverses, called universes, run their whole career in idleness?
This hypothesis plunges us into a crowd of inconsistencies; and in the first place, if the planets do nothing, cultivate nothing, produce nothing for one another, on what are they nourished, and what can be their bonds of harmony? What charms can hold them by attraction in the plane in which we see them fixed? To solve the difficulty, our savans decide that our planets do not eat; but if they do not labor, nor eat, nor perform other necessary functions, if they have not the use of the passions, sensual and spiritual, their functions are reduced to mere promenades! They are then automata, deprived of free will and mechanically applicable to any uses! In this case, the government of the universe is only an act of despotism on the part of God. He deprives himself of the chances of variety, which might spread a charm over his dominion. He imitates a king who, playing at cards with his minister, should wish to choose his hand, and leave no room for chance; the consequence would be ennui for both of them; can we presume that God, the infinitely wise, would commit such a fault in reducing to the part of automata the creatures whom he governs. Our philosophical and religious dogmas, in refusing to the stars industrial and creative functions, have infected with fatalism all the theories of movement; and to this day our foolishness in this sort is equal to that of the good simpletons who cannot break a pot without exclaiming: God’s will be done! They deceive themselves; it is not God’s will that there should be maladress or idleness; as a wise distributor, he wishes that creatures of all degrees should participate in the labors and delights, reserving to himself only the perpetual impulse or attraction, that it may be distributed unitarily, and leaving to the creatures the free will, the power to operate harmoniously for their happiness, or incoherently for their misery; since from the sub-divisions of Harmony and of the subversive order, spring the innumerable chances which form the stimulus of all creatures and of God himself.
Our planets, faithful to his intentions, pursue their harmonic labors of creation; while we think them idle, they are ready to give us a brilliant catalogue in the place of our hundred and thirty serpents and other reptiles hatched from the two first creations. It requires all the effrontery of the naturalists to flatter nature for a work so disgusting.
I have said nothing of the other functions of the planets; it is enough to have commenced with dissipating the prejudice upon a single one of these functions, that of production. In other chapters we shall treat of matters pertaining to the consumption, reproduction and passional mechanism of these stars, which are quite identical with ours, in spite of the variety of methods and processes. It is always, at bottom, the development of the twelve passions, subject, as to forms, to innumerable differences, as I have remarked on the subject of the reproduction of animals.
In truth, we see nothing of all this mechanism of the stars; the aroma is not visible by us. If we could perceive it, we should see the whole planetary air occupied by a crowd of aromal columns crossing it in all directions. We do not see the magnetic fluid, whose circulation about our globe is well established by the motion of the needle which it governs. We do not see the seven colors which exist in the solar ray, before the prism has divided them. We do not see certain other aromas, such as that of electricity, which nevertheless make themselves felt: is it astonishing that we do not see the agents of communication between the planets, and the transmissions of aromal and other substances which take place habitually in their society, from which our planet is excluded? The great planetary atmosphere is all furrowed by these columns of aromas, which traverse it in all directions, and cross each other like the bullets on a field of battle. The planets absorb and give out these aromas in various ways; an aroma of reproduction is absorbed by the poles, an aroma of manducation by the equator, one of plantation or of seed by various latitudes which favor its development; and so with the others, for the planet has points especially adapted to the exercise of each sense. All this mechanism, invisible to us, exists none the less, and it must be repeated for the hundredth time, that men judge nature falsely, when they believe her limited to known resources, to effects and phenomena which fall under our senses.
Is it astonishing that they have been so slow to recognize the interior mechanism of the planets? It is but yesterday that we have known that of the objects contiguous to us: the circulation of the blood, the sexual functions of plants. We believed for twenty-five learned centuries, that nothing, except nourishment, circulated in our body; that the blood, the humors and the corporeal fluids were stationary; that the veins, arteries and glands were in a state of lethargy, condemned to inactivity. Have we not, moreover, thought that the leaves of plants were without functions! It was not known that, the leaf labors as well as the root, that it absorbs the juices to carry them to the trunk, which sends them back into the. wood and the fruit, after elaboration. Now if for twenty-five centuries, we were too ignorant to judge either of the mechanism of our bodies, or that of plants which we had under our hands, is it surprising that we should have erred about the mechanism of the great planetary body, which is, like ourselves and our vegetables, a collection of springs and channels, in which circulate a crowd of fluids inspired and set in operation by the star, to be again respired and distributed amongst other stars.
But how can stars so far from one another talk together? What writing, or what concert can they have? How can they do this? And how can they do that? One might soon fill a page with these questions; but am I expected to explain all in a single chapter? and is it not time to finish this one? The important point was to dissipate that grossest of all prejudices, which establishes the inertia of the stars. Our savans reason continually about the unity of analogy, without ever wishing to subordinate thereto their speculative calculations, since they know in the polyversal scale but three creatures, man or the monoverse, the planet or biverse, and universe or triverse. If yon wish to suppose unity, let us attribute to these creatures passions and labors, as well as to ourselves. We may be deceived in the determination of the labors, it is true; but at least let us hold fast to the principle, and discuss at leisure the details, the most probable mode of passional and industrial relations of the stars. We will examine the different problems in succession. Let us continue first upon the aromal industry before passing to the other planetary functions.
Mineral Kingdom, Vegetable Kingdom, Animal Kingdom.
I have designated by the term terrestrial furnishings (mobilier terrestre) the product of the creations made upon the surface of a planet. They furnish also its interior, for new aromas may be created, which penetrate the body of the planet. We have seen that on the satellites or moons, keys of the first degree, the creations number only 12, besides pivotal one, which is never counted. Upon the cardinal planets, like our globe, they are of the number of 24, distributed as follows:
I have said that we can obtain at will the two creations numbered 3, neuter simple, and 4, neuter composite, because the simple (which will take place, like the second, pivotally on the American continent) is adapted to the seventh social period indicated in the table. Now as we shall omit this period, to pass immediately to the eighth, we shall be able to have the two creations simultaneously, the materials being ready. The aromas of the globe, all vitiated as its system is, exist not the less in a degree sufficient for Harmony. A very short operation, which the planet itself will execute by its boreal ring, will suffice to purge them and refine them. Once raised to the rank of the fourth creation, the third will be all the easier. For this reason they will be put together, twin-like, and will commence, one upon the new, the other upon the old continent, immediately after the inauguration of Harmony. So, every man now living may flatter himself that he will see them, but not in their completeness, for, in spite of the extreme acceleration with which the stars will Ret about it, the work will occupy at least a sieclade, one hundred and forty-four years, but it will be urged on without regard to regular methods. The planetary system will engage in the work, every other business being suspended, because it has pressing need of reinstalling our planet in its functions, where it cannot enter fully without new furnishings or a complete equipment. They will proceed as men do where there i» danger of inundation, when all hands are called out to remove in a couple of hours the crops, which ordinarily could not be gathered in less than two days.
A globe which should not periodically receive new creations, would fall into the same exhaustion with a field which is over-cultivated and never manured. We should see the vegetation degenerate into a bastard growth. Such is the state of our globe: it is a field run out. The creation which we are using will be sufficient to serve during the course of the obscure Lymb, provided the duration of the Lymb do not exceed a certain time, and they do not force the matter, as has happened. Thus the actual creation can no longer suffice for our globe. Let us examine its unsuitableness in the different kingdoms.
In the Mineral kingdom, we soon shall have no more gold and silver. We are stripped of diamonds and precious stones: we are stripped of various minerals very useful in industry, as platina, zinc, antimony, and even tin and mercury. America, or three centuries, has supplied the world with metals and diamonds, because she was yet virgin; but she is already a faded beauty. Potosi today is only Potosi in name: it is a mine in its last agonies. Mexico still yields, but she is sensibly in a decline. They count upon the interior of Africa; it is certain that it conceals more than one Potosi, thanks to the absence of civilization; for the civilizees soon use up the mines. Moreover Africa has mines in the shape of sand, containing gold, open the surface of the earth, as abundant as the iron in the fields of Franche-Comté. Africa is the corps de reserve of the globe in mineralogy. The English know that very well, and send there swarms of travellers under the pretext of philanthropy and geographical explorations. It is evident that the secret end of these philanthropists is to discover the Potosis of Africa, after which it will be easy to enter into understanding with the petty kings of the country for the exploitation: inasmuch as the cannon law, in addition to the means of seduction and of intrigue, would soon bring them to terms; and England would find brilliant resources in Africa; she would succeed there sooner or later, and venturing some caravans with presents, she would finish by immersing herself in the very midst of its wealth.
This perspective is nothing but a subject of alarm, in a mineralogical, and still more in a political point of view. The poor continentals are already slaves enough of the commercial Minotaur; and once let England get possession of the mines of Africa, mines untouched and consequently very fruitful for two or three centuries to come, and soon, of necessity, the whole continent will be reduced to a slavery still more horrible, if that be possible. Europe to-day does service, like a day-laborer, who sells himself for a determinate time, for the harvest or the vintage, in other words as long as the funds hold out; but if England gets hold of the mines of Africa, miserable Europe will finish like the poor villagers, who abandon the plough and go into domestic service.
Let us view this subject on a larger scale; let us abstract the three centuries of domestic servitude which this event would cause for Europe, and suppose ourselves arrived at the epoch when the mines of Africa shall be in as declining a state as those of America, and soon after exhausted, as Mexico will be within a century. Five hundred years will suffice for this. Then there will remain nothing in the way of precious mines upon the globe; the only resource left will be the 400,000 volumes of philosophy, which teach that gold and silver are vile metals, perfidious metals, which ought to be sunk in the bottom of the sea; still, they are less perfidious than copper, which poisons us, and causes sometimes the death of a whole family by the use of a copper kettle overlaid with verdigris. Gold, vile as they may call it, cannot play us such a trick. It is permissible, therefore, to esteem gold, whatever the philosophers may say of it, and to contemplate with alarm the time when the gold and silver of the globe shall begin to fail. So many people are alarmed already at the idea of wanting these vile metals! What will it be when all the mines are exhausted; when the goldsmith’s uses, and meltings down, when the mania for burying treasures in the ground, so common in India and in Europe since the revolutions, when shipwrecks and other absorbents shall have consumed the whole!
Then shall we have to resort to Spartan virtues, to money of iron or copper? But copper itself will be exhausted; the mines of Coperberg and Ekaterniburg are not far from their decline, if they have not already reached it; and what will become of our globe within a thousand years, if it is to receive no new creation in the Mineral as well as other kingdoms? So, as long as we occupy ourselves only with scientific moonshine, with the perceptions of sensation, of intuition, of cognition, it is too certain that all which pertains to the solid goods will go on declining; and it is no trifling damage, this speedy loss of the precious metals, already so rare even during the fertility of the mines! They never yet have furnished wherewithal to meet the demands of urgent utility, such as the table service of silver. Nine tenths of the human race are reduced to spoons of tin, iron or wood. What poverty! Diogenes and Seneca will not persuade us that a service of iron is as convenient as one of silver; that a copper tea-pot, liable to verdigris, is worth as much as one of silver, which cannot hurt us; and on this point, as on so many others, we must feel the want of a new creation, which will give us in abundance the pure metals, so necessary to domestic uses. The actual creation has given us the good only as the exception; in the next it will predominate; it will furnish us with gold and silver sowed in grains, like the iron on the surface of certain countries, which will have foundries of gold, as they have now of iron. Then, (and this may commence within five years,) the whole of the poorer class of the human race, composing two thirds of the population, will be served, for economy, in solid plate. Iron fixtures, as those pertaining to harness, locks, arms and kitchen utensils, in short every thing which man will have to handle, will be wrought only in the pure metals, brilliant, and exempt from rust or poison, as gold and silver and platina are to-day, as many other metals will be, which the creation will afford us in as great abundance as this, present creation has afforded iron, copper and other impure substances: how could it have failed to lavish upon us these unclean productions in the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdoms, since it had to represent, hieroglyphically, the effects of the passions, which engender nothing but political uncleanness during the obscure Lymb, or the civilized, barbarous and savage! chaos?
The same observations apply to diamonds and precious stones, to pearls, marbles, and whatever precious things the mineral kingdom produces. The primitive creation has given us these various objects with a parsimony truly ironical, j It seems as if Nature meant to say to us:’ “I could create the good, but I limit myself to merely showing it to you, that you may feel that you are deprived of it. Gold, diamonds, marble, so useful for the adorning of your persona and the structure of your habitations, shall be hidden away in inaccessible places, whence you can extract them only by unheard of pains. I give you but the shadow of these things, to convince you that you are disgraced and reduced to general indigence.”
I hear the philosophers reply that we have nothing to do with marble or pearls, and that it is enough for an austere re- j publican to have bread, iron, salt-petre and virtues, (in the phrase of 1793,) and { a wife to prepare his radishes, dressed with water, as the house-keeper of Phocion did for her worthy spouse! They will think very differently in Harmony, and, independently of good cheer, upon which I have discoursed, they will be of the opinion that, by virtue of that unity of system, so much demanded by philosophers, man ought to be clothed and adorned like the universe. The universe is sprinkled with suns; man should be sprinkled with diamonds; and of all our fashions the most judicious is that at spangled and embroidered dresses. It is the costume of Gods and Kings upon the stage. Such is the purpose of the Deity, and the destiny of Humanity: a purpose to which philosophy itself adheres, without perceiving it; for it says that man is the mirror of the universe: he ought, then, for the fidelity of the portrait, to be, like the universe, clothed with stars, and dwelling in splendor. A single, bath of unitary aroma will suffice to whiten the interior of certain chains of rocks, to coagulate their grain and form marbles of every species.
Other baths of aroma will give us gold, silver, diamonds and pearls in profusion, not in inaccessible places, not in the bowels of the earth, but on its surface. In the chapter on the Animal Kingdom we shall see in what relations of counter-type the new creations will be distributed.
II. Vegetable Kingdom.
Passing to the Vegetable kingdom, I shall have more than one assault to make upon the naturalists, who will begin by boasting of the gentle presents of Flora, Ceres and Pomona. Poor dupes, these three divinities are mocking you . Flora gives yon play-things at the very moment when you need subsistence. The vegetable system is organized in such a manner, as to satirize the civilizee in the periodical famines to which he is subjected. Three long months of the beautiful season roll away before man reaps the slightest food, for I count as nothing some little trifles, radishes and other minutia; which the Spring affords. Famine, when it steps upon the stage, as in 1812 and 1817, remains famine in spite of Flora; and during the whole reign of Flora our famished people see roses flourishing in May, which are like thorns and thistles for the wretches, dying of hunger, who want fruits and not flowers.
“Ah! but must not the flower precede the fruit? Must not nature have an order, an established method? We must regulate our necessities accordingly, and husband our provisions, &c. &c.” Admirable reasoning! The civilized order, and all the societies of the obscure Lymb, have not the property of laying in provisions in anticipation; they are necessarily the victims of a vegetable system which does not begin to yield until after the equinox, and which furnishes nothing en roquee (nor by diffraction.)
We see so many plants which give the flower before the leaf, why have we none which give a fruit, an eatable substance, before they give the blossom? To support us in this way, nature might have created certain vegetables out of the regular order (roquees,) growing under the snow, and furnishing an aliment to man, in the same manner as the mosses of Lapland, the Ichos of the Cordilleras, are stored up under the snow for the reindeers and vigognes. Nature, in the black truffle, shows us the infinity of her means as to transitions: she gives us a fruit without leaves, or stalk, or root, and more than that, without sowing. The truffle, far more remarkable than the mush-room, proves that nature has ways of effecting bonds and transitions of every sort, even seed-plots of aromas, for the truffle has no other origin. How could nature, so ingenious in binding together her whole system, neglect to bind together winter and summer by some fruits roquees, or anterior to the season of flowers? The creation might provide us thus in two manners; first, by eatable plants with fleshy leaves, which should have their leaves in spring before the flower, without inverting the established order; and then by roots which, sowed like wheat at the end of autumn, should be ripening under the snow (or in the water) and furnish their tubercles in the season of the freshets (fontes.) By these provisions we should have been sheltered from famine; for as soon as we should see a danger of famine, (and any empire may assure itself of that after, the month of October, by looking at an inventory of its harvests,) we should sow an abundance of the two classes of vegetables above mentioned, and we should reap an ample supply therefrom in the months of March and April, at the time of the vernal equinox, when famine first makes itself felt after any scarcity in the grain harvests.
Thus is our vegetable kingdom doubly deficient in products which may be gathered before the general season. There are some for animals, but none for man. Now, an operation is defective when it does not unite itself with the pivot of movement, which is man. Out of 30,000 vegetables one ten thousandth would have sufficed, or four plants formed of fleshy roots or leaves, which might be eaten in the Spring, and growing under the snow like the mosses. Let us add that, if the creation were regular, man would have at his service not four, but forty plants at least of this kind. This, then, is the wise and provident Nature, which his made no provision of guarantees against famine. Is it for want of means? Certainly not. If we could explore a planet as well organized as Jupiter, we should find these premature plants as numerous and as various as the fruits of our orchards. Our globe is completely destitute of this sort of vegetables, and it is evident that this creation is only an abortion in the movement called roquee, notwithstanding its pretended wealth of 30,000 species, 29,000 of which are worse than useless. This I shall prove hereafter.
Were the planets ignorant that it is necessary in a regular system to contrive a movement roquee, an anticipation of the harvest? Undoubtedly not. This anticipation (roquage) is one of the fundamental rules of movement; a rule which characteristic minds[3]divine by inspiration. Thus the inventor of the game of chess has made use of it, though with too much restriction; but he has at least the honor of having recognized a great principle of movement in a game, which, among amusements, is the most beautiful conception of the human mind.
I limit myself to this complaint against the amiable Flora. I might lay a thousand other sins to her charge, and change her crown of roses into a crown of thistles, but beautiful women require to be managed. This flower-goddess bamboozles us with her sweet Spring, which regales only the eyes! I can only compare it to a feast given at Lyons by a certain general, who made a great flourish of trumpets about this soiree for a month beforehand. People canvassed for admission, and various speculators, they say, took medicine and clysters the night before to prepare their stomachs. We may say without exaggeration that several arrived there with appetites of twenty-four hours standing, a very common calculation with certain guests. The debut was brilliant for the eyes: the young danced, the old conversed and waited for the supper. Midnight arrives; the clock strikes one, and there is nothing heard of it. The impatient guests scarcely find a few glasses of lemonade, which only serve to deepen tbo abyss. They judge the tapper to be altogether too much deferred. Finally it strikes two; all the oracles decide that it will not do to delay the supper a moment longer, and in all frankness they intimate as much to one of the chiefs of the house, but, O sad and dolorous discomfiture! He replies that it is a dancing party, and that there is no supper! I leave the reader to imagine what an impression this thunder-clap produced upon the assembly. Every one would have betaken himself to the restorateur, but in the provinces the restorateurs are all asleep by that time, especially in winter. The majority of the assembly deserted and went to wake up whom they could, to give them refreshments. The gourmands next day had the laugh upon them for their disappointment, and even the most sober declared themselves mystified; for there is no good feast, where there is no table set; and I wished to bring this complaint against the ridiculous season of Flora, who nourishes with vapor the poor human race, after a winter passed most commonly in privations.
Then comes Ceres with her sad harvests. What pains it costs to reap and to prepare this miserable bread! Well did the God of the Jews say to our first father: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou earn thy bread!” The Scriptures, in representing this cultivation of wheat as a punishment inflicted upon man, do not exaggerate. It is not possible to accumulate more fatigues and disgusts than are experienced in the labors necessary to this cheap nourishment. And yet it is the pivot of the alimentary system of man. Fine trophy for those who first imagined this creation, so much boasted by our naturalists! The stars who made it, take compassion on us for it. The aromal crossness of the globe does not permit this epoch to operate better; but it will be seen after the next creation how the stars operate upon a globe which furnishes them with good materials! and then the gifts of Ceres in grains will be appreciated at their mediocre value.
I say as much of the gifts of Pomona, which, for the most part, shine only in a negative sense, for the same reason that one-eyed men are kings among the blind. There are undoubtedly some pleasant fruits, but too many insects with whom we have to dispute the title. Besides, their duration is too short, their preservation too difficult, and their distribution very unseasonable. The temperate zone wants fruits in the very season when they are most needed, in the great heats. There is a whole month’s cessation between the red fruits and those of autumn; the plum and the apricot, which occupy the interregnum, are feverish and repugnant to many.
I speak here of the popular consumption. Without doubt the rich, by getting the first pick, are always well provided; Prince Potemkin ate cherries at St. Petersburg in the month of January, by paying a crown a piece for them; but in discoursing of the abundance or scarcity of an article of food, it is understood that we speak with reference to the people; and in this view it may be said that the inhabitant of London has no melons, although the rich may at a great expense procure them.
In fact, if we observe how few varieties the 30,000 plants furnish for our tables, we cannot fail to be astonished at the poverty of this creation, and to desire that the human race should exert itself to replace it as soon as possible, preserving only the better and more distinguished vegetables, which after the new creation will be far more precious than before, since it will furnish us, in the animal kingdom, with counter-types or destroyers of these legions of insects which devour our garden vegetables and fruits. In agriculture, as in other functions, the honest industrial toils only for knaves; and nature, who has surrounded him with a legion of knaves in the human form, should, by analogy, by unity of system, assail his granaries, fields and gardens with knaves, who, in the shape of insects, carry off the fruit of his labors in all directions. What was the need of creating thirty-three species of weevils to devour our wheat? When the God of the Jews condemned Adam to reap this wheat by the sweat of his brow, he might at least have left him in possession of the wheat so painfully obtained, and not have unloosed against him thirty-three species of the same genus of ravagers! One must be an enemy of good sense, to see the work of a beneficent God in a creation so odious, and to refuse to recognize in it a provisionary monstrosity, compelled by circumstances, and which authors arc impatient to replace!
I have said that the creations grow old and become in time unsuitable for a globe; our own furnishes a proof of this, it gives us nothing good for the great majority: it reduces the villagers to gross dishes, cabbages, and kidney-beans and peas. On the other hand, this paltry creation, in depriving the poor man of wines and perfumed tonics, reduces him to the use of garlic, which corrupts his breath. . . . . A corruption of the composite order, which transforms the civilizee into a walking dunghill; worthy fruit of a creation so well distributed for the aromal perfection of man! These gross productions could suffice in the primitive ages of industry, when kings, like Ulysses, lived upon the product of their flocks, and when the princess Nausicaa was proud of going out to wash her own robes. The times are changed; the progress of intelligence has created more wants for the middling class, than the class of kings had in the age of Homer. Meanwhile the creation has not augmented its productions: the new tributes of the two Indias, sugar, coffee, &c., are not diffused among the people, and it is evident that our people live more poorly than the people of antiquity, who devoured great quarters of meat, while ours have often only vegetables and had bread. The creation therefore has grown old, inasmuch as it no longer coincides with the wants of the social world; it would be still more out of proportion if we had arrived at the sixth period, or guaranteeism.
From the earliest ages the creation has presented inexcusable omissions, among others that of fruits. It has been seen that they fail us in the heat of summer, and that the feverish cohort of plums and apricots is equivalent to a veritable destitution, During the hot season, the cities, well provided in their environs with skilful gardeners, can prolong the duration of the red fruits, accelerate the pear, and nearly cover the interval. But the country has nearly six weeks holiday and suspension of fruits in midsummer; the melting pears, the melons and the grapes, which would be so desirable in July, do not arrive until the end of August, when the weather is cooler. In September the fruits offer the same superabundance with the flowers in May, every thing in one season, and nothing in another: the pear does not hold out till November, the grape is over in December (for the people); there remains in January only the apple, which seems to linger to remind us of the absence of fruits: it is the exception which confirms the rule.
We are only preluding upon the subject, and I shall take up again the vices of this odious creation, which seems, and really is a system of organized treachery against man, even in the most seducing gifts of nature. There is nothing more tempting than the gooseberry; you think to refresh yourself with a beautiful bunch, and instantly you taste the noisome little bugs concealed between the berries, and whose color has deceived the eye. If you would believe the naturalists, they would find in all these abominations a theme for a panegyric upon beneficent Nature; but, to speak plainly, let us confess that our globe is furnished with an infernal creation, the vices of which I shall explain more regularly in the following chapter.
III. Animal Kingdom.
Tigers and wolves! wasps and bedbugs! rats and vipers! it is for you to reply to the apologists of good and simple Nature; and I have been waiting to bring you upon the stage to describe her work.
In the scale of general harmony, an animal, a subaltern who attacks the chief, or man, is a monstrosity, as much as an assassin who stabs the King. Habituated to a divergent creation, in which all nature is in war against man, we have not observed the absurdity of such an order. It is all regular enough if you please to consider it according to our political prejudices, according to our laws, which consecrate only violence and falsehood; but on a globe harmonically furnished, the creations ought to give only creatures friendly to man, with the exception of one eighth, of a mixed or unsocial character, without being in rebellion against man. Such is the swallow, which does us no harm, but which is incompatible with us, and from which we derive no service; for neither its flesh nor its plumage can be useful to us; while the partridge and the quail, although not associated with us, are negative servants who furnish us a very precious subsistence.
To estimate the poverty of the animal kingdom upon our globe, it is necessary to analyze the proportion of creatures useful and useless to man; it give the following:
Domesticated Quadrupeds.
[Here the manuscript is broken off, and as to the section on the Aromal Kingdom, indicated in the summary, it was never even commenced.]

[1] I use the word co-plantation to signify the active intervention of two animated creatures, identical in species, one of which explants and the other implants; whereas in our plantations and cultures, the earth which cooperates with us by its surface, and the sun, which co-operates with us by its rays, are not creatures of the same species with ourselves.
[2] Observe, the pivot is never counted in movement. This is why we only count four kingdoms, without mentioning the pivotal, or passional kingdom which is superior; just as we only count thirty-two planets, without speaking of the sun, which is the principal.
[3] I use the words characteristic minds as a correction upon the word inspiration. I am far from believing in inspirations; but it is evident that certain minds are inclined by character to this or that kind of labor, and that they divine ingeniously, or mechanically if you will, its natural methods; witness Homer in Epic poetry, witness Archimedes and Pascal in geometry. A mendicant, three thousand years before us, and in an age of ignorance, determines the rules of a transcendent style of poetry, unknown to his own time, a style to which our savans, with all their study, cannot attain, in spite of the artificial aids which have been lavished upon them? After that, how can we doubt that there are characters in whom the excess of natural aptitude is equivalent to inspiration? And am not I, in the theory of Harmony, what Homer was in the Epic! I appeal to posterity.—Note of Fourier.

1 Comment

Filed under Charles Fourier, cosmogony, manuscript writings, The Harbinger

Gabriel-Desire Laverdant, “Of Property”

Translated for the Harbinger.
Attractions are proportional to Deatinies.
The Series distribute the Harmonies.
I. Unity, the Fundamental Principle.
The theory of Association is true simply because it is true that Attractions are proportional to Destinies. It is upon Attractions that the great Social Architect has framed the edifice of our terrestrial destiny. In other words, the Phalanstery is made in the image of Man.
What constitutes the supreme science of Fourier, is the thorough knowledge of man and of his attractions. What constitutes the discovery of Fourier, is the Series, which is the mode of distribution of functions, adapted to the human soul.
Fourier responded to the precept of the Greek philosopher: know thyself; and, man once known, the true social organization was developed to the sublime thinker.
Serial institutions are nothing, under a certain point of. view, but images of man raised to different powers.[1]For so the law of universal analogy requires it.
This proposition of the necessary unity between the motive spring and its mode of action, between the passion and the series, can cause no question in the School. Besides we have not here to demonstrate the truth of Fourier’s psychology. No one is a Phalansterian in earnest, if he has not penetrated this science of the soul, and if he does not take it for the basis of his doctrines and of his ideas. We say further: whoever admits the Phalanstery, whoever approves simply the industrial organization of the Phalanx, the same admits, by implication, our psychology, since the Phalanstery is but the mechanism essentially adapted to the soul as it is described by Fourier.
There are those, perhaps, who say they take the Phalanstery, but reject the psychology. We will wait until it shall be given, by some special grace, to these indolent intelligences to ascend back from effects to causes.
Others, we are aware, accept the Phalanstery only as an excellent transition. These (we take a pleasure in informing them,) do accept the psychology of Fourier, whether they care about it or not, whether they are conscious of it or not. It is simply another Monsieur Jourdain, who spoke prose without knowing it. Would these provisional Phalansterians, then, admit provisionally our psychology? Then it would remain to know whether a psychology can be transitory; whether the human soul is radically made over by successive substitutions, or whether it is simply transformed through a gradual process of amelioration, according to a uniform plan.
For ourselves, we should not know how to get along with a provisionalpsychology any better than we should with a Frenchphilosophy. We believe that the soul is One in its essence and in time. When once this soul is recognized in its essential elements, when once the passions have been analyzed in their double [direct and inverse] action; we shall have the bases of the true philosophy, we shall have the bases of social science, of definitive and settled polity.
It is understood then that we assume as the first principle of all social truth, of all order, the passional analysis produced by Fourier. Let us see in general terms what this analysis gives us.
II. Love is Man Himself.
Man places himself in relation with nature, by his senses; with the laws of universal order, by his intelligence; with his fellows, by his heart. The measured ensemble [or blending in true proportions] of these different forces, places man in communion with God. But what is the principal and inmost thing in man, which constitutes the man himself, is the affective force. Man may be defined as “a love served by the senses and by an intellect.”
In the familiar language of all nations, in the inspired word of poets, even in the imperfect books of the savans, it is said that the region of the heart, that the heart is the focus of desires, of affections.
The organs of the senses are all on the circumference. The limbs part from the trunk and tend to the lower sphere; and, by the feet, which are the passive organs of touch (as the hands are the active organ,) we hold in a permanent manner to the ground. On the contrary, the focus of intelligence, the brain, placed in the upper part, is as it were in contact with the heavens. The heart is in the centre of the human being. The organ of light, the eye, lies close to the intellectual centre; but the vital warmth has for its focus the heart.
The human countenance, at once directed towards the heavens and commanding the earth, sums up the entire man. There the senses come together, there the forehead rears its symbol of intelligence, there the sentiments shine forth in all their power and their mobility. The seat of the soul is still a subject of investigation; assuredly, whatever may be the post at which it concentrates its interior action, its exterior manifestation is summed up in the race. There again it must be remarked, the predominating feature is the expression of the sentiments; the affections of the heart, hatred and love, sufferings and happiness, radiate especially from the central portions of the face.
Such is man. And it is the object of this hasty picture to establish to the reader’s satisfaction, that without going into any consideration of functions, simply looking at external signs, at the way in which his physical organization is distributed, what is central, what is principal in man is the Affective part; it is sentiment, it is Love.
III. Principles of the Cardinal Passions, and their
Correspondence with the necessary Functions
Fourier, as every one knows, distinguishes, in the first degree of analysis, four sorts of love, which he names the four Cardinal Passions.[2]Let us assure ourselves, by a succinct analysis, of the reasonableness of these distinctions. If we cast a general glance upon humanity, what do we behold? In the first place a great mass. Do we wish to penetrate farther into this whole? Let us analyze, distinguish, divide; let us seek Variety in Unity.
All the elements of the human family have their reciprocal attachments. These necessary ties we are about to deduce from necessary functions; the nature of these attachments will be revealed to us by the very conveniences and fitnesses of our terrestrial destiny. Terrestrial destiny has three objects, corresponding to the three spheres of human activity. First, to develop and refine the body, to cultivate and embellish the globe, the domain of man, the body of the planet. Next, to open and strengthen the understanding, to acquire the integral science which shall reveal to the human mind the laws of universal life and the wonders of the worlds. And in the third place, to enlarge the heart, to per feet it by love, to render the soul of Humanity worthy to elevate itself in the scale of existences and to be united with the Divinity. These three objects of Destiny in their religious unity, are admirably expressed by these simple and sublime words of the Catholic catechism: To serve, to know, and to love God. Happiness is added as a sanction to the accomplishment of this triple destiny, this triple duty.[3]
Thus: To live,— cultivating and refining the individual and collective body, illuminating the mind, and perfecting the heart,—in order thus to unite ourselves with God.
The first term is undoubtedly the least noble; but the culture of the soil, whence he derives his nourishment, is for man the most powerful of wants, of duties. Moreover, all is so harmoniously connected in the universe, that in interrogating this material act of Destiny, we shall necessarily see the spiritual life spring forth from it.
What are the fundamental material functions of the human race upon the globe? There are two general ones:
1. Production, consisting in the culture and government of the domain.
2. Reproduction of the species, in order that this work of administration may be perpetuated.
Fourier qualifies these two functions as major creation, and minor creation.
As soon as men want to act, they combine; and this first very general tie which forms between them, takes no account of sex or age. This tie is expressed in language by the words companionship, fellowship, friendship. Among companions, among fellows, among friends, all is on a fooling of equality; the union is free and confused.
If man wants to exercise his government with force for greater production, the confused equality of the group of friendship no longer suffices, and he distributes himself in sects and corporations; he organizes power. The human group then takes another essential character. Confused independence is replaced by a hierarchy.
With these two forms, friendly union and hierarchical organization, man can act and govern; but, that his administration may continue, the reproduction of the species is necessary. Then a new tie intervenes; then, in the human mass, free or organized, you distinguish two contrasted terms, the man and the woman. Love conies with its acts of tenderness and blind fanaticism, to unite these two elements; and from their contact springs soon another sentiment, a new attachment, that of the family, which welcomes and adores the infant and prepares him by education for the function of major creation.
Thus then, in correspondence with the general functions of the species, we see produced four different modes of ties, or of affections. These are in fact the four passions which attach man to his fellows: Friendship, Ambition, Love, and Familism.
That the government of the domain may reach its maximum of development, that collective Humanity may be (tied for its functions in the world of Humanities, in the universe, just as the individual man performs his functions in his terrestrial sphere; societies must be organized, political Unity must be constituted; men must be all fraternally united with one another till they become as one;till they feel the need of union with superior beings and with God, and of perpetuating themselves in an eternal life. This supreme tie, this universal and religious attachment, is Unity-ism, the potential accord of the four cardinal passions.
I. The Series proportional to Love.
If Attractions are proportioned to Destinies, it is evident that each of the cardinal passions bears in itself a certain type of order. Since these passions embrace all the mutual relations of men, it follows with rigorous exactness that they themselves determine the law of these relations; and, if among the forces of the soul they hold the rank of cardinals, if they are the focus of the social life, if they are the man himself, then it is incontestable that in their natural requirements we ought first to seek the principal laws, the necessary conditions of essential order. In a word, if Attractions are proportional to Destinies, and if the Series distribute the Harmonies, then these four passions, all and each, contain and imply the forms of the Series, and it is from their profound study that we must demand the revelation of Harmony and of Destiny.
II. Principles of the Four Kingdoms[4]Laws of
the Distribution of Elements in Nature.
Fourier did not content himself with the laws revealed by the human functions, with the indications furnished in the analysis of the soul; he also sought for confirmation in the outward phenomena and laws of Nature.
 Let us follow the master in his rigorous method, and, having analyzed the four passional groups, let us interrogate the four groups of the terrestrial creation. Let us seek in the kingdoms of nature what are the apparent characters, the forms which life affects; in short, what are the laws of variety in these different unities.
The substantial or rudimental state of every kingdom, is a confused aggregation of elements, such as is offered us in the mineral. The elements, similar to each other and similar to the mass, are confounded without any relative superiority resulting from their composition and their arrangement. In the crystals of the same variety, the facets form among themselves constantly the same angles. The mineral masses have not organs; but, on analyzing them, we find them composed of integrant molecules, that is to say of parts distinguished from each other or individualized in an equal manner.
When science shall have penetrated further into the aromal kingdom, when the imponderable fluids shall be better known, we shall see every where displayed, in this domain, the principle of duality. Already the observations which have been collected upon light, heat, electricity, authorise us to lay down the law of polarity as characteristic of the aromal movement. Here the parts individualize themselves, and the mass divides into two organs or foci of attraction, which are married or set opposite to each other in symmetry or in contrast.
See now the vegetable rising from the soil. On a principal stalk there opens laterally a bud, then another on the opposite side; these are the brandies balancing each other on a common trunk. Here we have a centre and two wings. Frequently, in the tree, at a distance, the mass of the branches and the foliage seems to efface the trunk; but, on closer observation, you can easily recognize the predominant character, the pivotal property of this hidden trunk. It is tins which equilibrates the branches. In the vegetable kingdom, the different parts of the being, individualized, married, contrasted, are balanced upon a pivot.
In the animal unity, not only are the parts individualized, married, opposed in contrast and equilibrated; but they are measured; that is to say, they are assembled and put together in a determinate number, conjugated hierarchically about a centre which stands out in strong relief. The quantities, constant in each species, are easily counted by analysis, even by the eye.
Man sums up in himself all these laws of combination, all these conditions of variety. In him, the elements assembled, individualized, every where married and contrasted, measured, are stir-compounded, raised by their arrangement to superior powers, and constitute, in their perfect unity, the type of the created order.[5]
Each one may complete this comparative analysis of the kingdoms for himself. We have been obliged to limit ourselves to some general distinctions useful to our subject.
III. The Serial Types.
Now, we are going to beg the reader to make of all these analyses a synthesis. Let him sum up in his thought the characters of the four kingdoms, the properties and functions of the four cardinals as they are expounded in the books of Fourier, and especially under the form of analysis which we have chosen; let him demand, moreover, of the mathematical sciences, the properties of the conic sections; and instantly analogy will exhibit to his eyes the successive forms which Variety affects in the great fundamental Unities. He will have before him, taught at once by mathematics, by nature and by the human soul, the general principle of the distribution of forces; in other words, the principle, the bases and the different types of the Series.
Fourier has named several modes of Series:
Simple, Composite, Mixt;
Free, Measured, Potential.
But it is difficult to find in his books a methodical analysis and classification of all the forms of the Series. It seem* that be was pleased to leave our minds in uncertainty upon this point. Was this a calculation of bad “humor on his part, as some have suspected; or was there not some providential reason for this premeditated lacune? However this may be, Fourier, who brings all back to psychology, who demonstrates every truth by adapting it analogically to the passional type,—Fourier has not applied ostensibly this process to the demonstration of his nomenclature of series. For the rest, in the thought of the Master, this nomenclature, although left incomplete, has not the less its scientific value. We may detect in it the reasons of functions; for it is even easy to refer his free, measured, and potential series, to the two major elements together with the pivot of the passional gamut. The modes which correspond with the minor elements only, are omitted.
This, then, is the way, according to us, in which the table of the serial mechanism must be filled out, and brought into passional correspondence.
Friendship bears in itself the free series, of which the dominant principle is equality; where each unity is equivalent to every other, where every individuality is equal to the others in the free and confused mass. It is the circular group of friends; it is the identity and non-arrangement of the integrant molecules in the lump of earth; it is the constant angle in crystals; it is the musical notes without regular connection, the promiscuous sounds of the human voice.
Love bears in itself the series which we shall call dual or contrasted, of which the dominant principle is duality; where all the parts attach themselves to two foci of attraction, which form a contrast and produce symmetry. It is the ellipse; it is the group of lovers; it is the two poles of the aromal movement; it is the modes in music, the major and the minor, with their accent and their contrasted shades.
Familism bears in itself the series which we term balanced. The analogy of the balance, which renders this term clear and picturesque, indicates at the same time that its principle is equilibrium, and its type, two wings upon a pivot. There is no better affective image of this series to be found, than in some Holy Family of Raphael where the infant Jesus forms the equilibrium between the tenderly inclined figures of Mary and of Joseph. We shall find its principle also in the form of the plant, the tree; in music, in the perfect chord, where two notes pivot or repose upon a third. The balanced series is a type of mechanism, already very fruitful; so too the perfect chord is a stable accord and the basis of all musical harmony.
Ambition bears in itself the measured series, where all the elements, determinate and clawed. borrowing their value from their rank, concur to render prominent the pivot; where all obeys freely the principle of a hierarchy. — It is the sect, the corporation, the political group, strongly constituted; it is the precise and powerful organization of the animal, where life, in its two great movements, is concentrated and summed up in those important foci, the heart and the brain; it is moreover the diatonic gamut, with its two tetrachords, the one of three, the other of four tones, and of which the complete scale, in developing itself, brings out vividly a superior pivot, or the octave.[6]
Finally, the four cardinals, multiplied in their forces by the three mechanizing passions, give Unity-ism; and Unity-ism bears in itself the potentialseries, of which the principle is Unity, harmonized integrality. — It is the integral chromatic gamut; it is man, the compendium of the world, the image of God; it is the organized phalanx; it is humanity constituted into one vast political family, humanity at peace with itself, governing its globe by love, and communing with Deity.[7]
The reader will remark how naturally spring from our analysis the sacred numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, which serve as the bases to the different serial types. If we were anything of a mathematician, we might develop here the analogy of these numbers with the geometric types.
Let us sum up these analyses in a table.

To complete this study, we should show how the series borrow their character also of the intellectual passions. In each of the modes, in fact, the Mechanizing passions appear, to play their capital part. The Cabalist gives to the free series the principle of distinction, of opposition; the Composite, that of accord, of alliance to the dual series; the Papillon represents, in the balanced series, the principle of alternation, of balance, of equilibrium. All three of them intervene concurrently with the four affective springs in the measured series.
The qualities of simple, mixt and composite, often designated by Fourier, apply, as we think, to the whole serial scale. A free series may be composite: thus, a double circle, such as is made in the rounds of children, or in the figure of the Mazurka. The chromatic gamut, doubled by distinguishing the major and minor semi-tones, is a composite contrasted potential series.
IV. Characters of the Potential Series.
Some persons, who have not penetrated far enough into science by study or by sentiment, have sometimes a tendency to think that the Potential Series, the type of order sui generis, has nothing to do with the principles of the other series, and that it excludes the inferior forms. From this idea, from this confusion results a double inconvenience. To some, for example, who sympathize to enthusiasm with the principle of equality, the superior type of order, as thus comprehended, seems oppressive. Some unitary fanatics, only moderately enlightened, encourage themselves thus willfully to go the whole length of individualism and equality. Half-science is always full of injustice and danger. Let us endeavor then to establish more precisely the characteristics of the Potential Series.
The Potential Series is not an order composed of elements entirely new; on the contrary, it only combines in itself the principles of all the others, which it resumes in a superior unity.
In the scale of series, each degree assimilates to itself the inferior degrees. As soon as the molecular principle, in the creation, is produced, — the principle of individualism, of equality,—it becomes a necessary part of all new movement. The principle of duality, which characterizes the aromal movement, manifests itself in the vegetable kingdom under different modes: as trunk and root, absorption and resorption, sexual organs, the waking and sleeping of plants. This progressive assimilation extends to the whole scale.
The essential principles of the series, if they are isolated in the creations of human genius, remain unfruitful, and sometimes become hurtful. Apply them in parallels, contrast them, interlock them, alternate them, know how to combine them all in a strong unity; in short, employ them serially, and all and each of them will appear to you endowed with a sovereign fecundity. But try to establish a mechanism, a living organism with the sole principle of equality, and you will produce nothing but disorder; and yet what an important part the free series plays in nature!
Never imagine, therefore, that the free serial type disappears in the Potential Series. What are the notes, in the musical gamut of the third degree? What are the hairs, the skin, the tissues, the fleshy parts, the capillary vessels, in the human body? They are nothing but simple unities with relation to pivotal functions, to organs. In the modern theatre, which is quite a Potential Series, do we not find the free series represented and playing a very active part in the gallery and the parterre?
The potential order, then, does not exclude any of the inferior elements; it makes use of them all. It takes, in the first degree, the units and the equalitary mass; in the second, symmetry and contrast; in the third, equilibrium; in the fourth, precise measure and hierarchy; and it is from the combination of all these powers that it creates in itself the most perfect Unity in the bosom of the most extended Variety. Take away one of these elements, and the Variety is diminished, Liberty is restricted, the Series is less supple, and from that time the Unity, more severe and more oppressive, is more and more threatened with dissolution.
Before closing this chapter, let us make one more remark.
If we observe the human organization, this little world, man, this image of God, we find that the free and confused elements, that the parts which represent the free series are placed particularly on the surface of the body, scattered as it were, at a distance from the ruling organs; and, to all appearance, having but a secondary interest in the great movements of life. From this law of distribution we might infer a veritable inferiority of the free series compared with the others. Nevertheless, a more attentive study reveals the important office of even the most superficial parts in the human economy; let it suffice to mention the functions and the sensibility of the skin. This phenomenon, in the general theory of Fourier, is explained by the law of the contact of extremes.
We shall have to take account, then, of this law in all our researches, and in all our works; we must not fear, in any organization whatsoever, to give all its special importance to the free series; and we must nut be astonished if this term of the serial scale offers points of con tact with the pivot.
I. General Principles.
We shall now apply the principles just explained to the question of Property. Man is the monarch of creation. To him the earth has been entrusted; the soil and its riches are his. property. In this great Unity, we have to seek Variety. When we consider this general term of property, the earth, it is evident that we shall find nothing like individual appropriation. The entire globe is divided into empires, kingdoms, provinces, communes, which are distributed among races, nations, phalanxes or townships. This first degree of distribution is in some sort the skeleton of property in humanity.
Let us go down into the commune or township; there, we still admit that the immovable soil belongs to the Species represented by the Phalanx, which is a perpetual being.
Upon this domain, cultivated in a unitary manner, it is man’s mission to develop life and riches; man incessantly appropriates to himself physical nature. And God has given him an immense Attraction for this function of appropriation, which is at once the recompense of labor, the incitement to a new activity and the source of creation: the moans of enjoying and the means -of producing. Appropriation,—that is the whole industrial man.
Treasures evermore increasing, then, are brought forth by the power and genius of man. It is in this movable mass that we have to seek Variety; it is in this clement of things produced, of fruits, values and immaterial riches, that we have to seek by what laws the individual acquires, what part returns to him in the general creation.
Property has been defined: “That which is proper to each one, that which belongs to one to the exclusion of others.” This definition is narrow; we do not accept it. We shall say in terms more general: “Property is what belongs to man.” It will instantly appear bow important the shade that separates these two definitions.
Every man ought to be, every man is a proprietor. Assuredly this great necessary fact should have its fitting lawn, should translate itself into institutions. We limit ourselves here to a discussion on the primitive manners of acquiring, on the principal modes of participation in the social riches.
Since the right belongs to all, these modes must be such that they shall never constitute a privilege for some to the detriment of others; and, on the other hand, they must guarantee an exercise of the right as extensive as the legitimate desire. What principles shall guide us in determining these modes of participation? Shall we have recourse to the analysis of actual facts in order to conclude that these facts are wrong? Shall we press to shipwreck certain true principles with their vicious application? Shall we set out with an a priori of civilized wisdom? Shall we invoke vague principles, as justice, fraternity, and so forth, principles so poorly understood even by those who have the best intention? Shall we arrange things according to reason? But we have the reason of M. Portalis, the reason of M. Guizot, of M. Passy, of M. Troplong, of M. Laferriere, of M. Dupin, of M. Agni&s, of M. Proudhon, of M. Vidal, of M. Pecqueur, of M. Cabet, without counting those of other countries, without counting the dead. Which reason is right? (Quelle raison aura raison?)
In truth, in this world of simplists, we should be almost sure of wandering from confusions into confusions. Let us address ourselves to a higher quarter. Let us recur to fixed principles, to universal laws. To all the reasons of the reasonable and of the reasoning, in my opinion it is better to prefer the science of man. I leave to those who are more fortunate the sphere of abstract and mathematical proofs, and confine myself to the domain of the active faculties.
Where shall we find a better principle of analysis than in the bottom of the human soul? What surer guide to regulate human relations than the nature of man himself? We have established, as an incontestable axiom, that social institutions can only be the image of man himself, one as to the unity of his being, various as to his different springs. Just institutions, we have said, are the mechanisms adequate to the soul’s forms of activity, and they are necessarily analogous in their principles to the principle of the forces whence they emanate.
We have seen that in the first degree of analysis, Love (the source of all social relations) has four special modes of action; and we have shown how to each of these modes of action there corresponds a species of series, from the free mode to the potential, which combines and synthetizes.
Since property is the industrial man, if there be economy of means and unity in the laws of the living world, the modes of participation in the collective social wealth must correspond to the forces of the soul; in other words, if Attractions are proportional to Destinies, and if the Series distributes the Harmonies, the institutions of property must agree with the cardinal passions, and the modes of appropriation must be based upon the series.
II. Manners of Acquiring, corresponding with the Necessary
Functions, with the Wants and Rights of Man.
We say that there exists a manner of acquiring, a mode of participation, which corresponds to Friendship and which is based on the free series. The reasons of necessary functions, and the supreme law of fitness, go to confirm this a priori.
That man may live and fulfill his destiny, it is necessary that he be placed, from the day of his birth, in the conditions of a full development of his organization and of all his faculties. That is incontestably the will of God.
Let us carry ourselves back to the day of Creation. Tradition, reason, science, all indicate that the first men appeared upon the globe in the fullness of their powers. A true representation of man implies a series of contrasted ages, since in no other manner could each find his own functions. Thus, at the moment when the children of God were left to themselves, they found themselves, for the most part, provided and brought up. This education exceptionally completed, although elementary, was the divine legacy of Adam.
And let it not be said that this great anthropogonic fact contains simply a lesson for fathers, that it offers the type of Family duty and nothing more. Assuredly, the just God, in his universal providence, had, with one unitary breath, developed all the forces, all the faculties, all the vocations, of which the germ was deposited in each creature. To this all-powerful inspiration, each note of the human scale, equally impregnated, returned a different sound; but each resounded in all its intensity and in its perfect purity. Each character found itself harmoniously developed at one burst.[8]How, then, can we suppose that the Creator wished man to expect hereafter his integral development from the divided, contradictory, feeble impulsions of the individual family? No, God does not wish that the aid given to man, in order to be efficacious, should be thus strewn about at random. In committing to man the direction of social movement, God designed his own place to be worthily supplied, and it is not from him that this miserable shiftlessness and monstrous inequality proceed, which now preside over the rearing and education of children. Nevertheless, after so many centuries of errors and of sufferings, society seems at last to be deciphering the sense of the divine mystery; the children of the poor are adopted, (witness the public nurseries (crèches) and halls of asylum,) the principle of gratuitous unitary education is proclaimed. But how far still from comprehending its mission is the university, which every year has itself solemnly addressed as alma parens! How very moderately Catholic and Christian it is! How little do its cold and narrow lap, its literal lessons, take the place of the paternal and maternal care at once, in which the first human beings were all nourished, of that vivifying breath by which the earth saw Adam spring forth in his power and in his beauty!
Every one then should be able to take freely around him whatever is necessary to this essential want of development which makes him man. Material and spiritual nourishment; an education such that the body may attain its full growth, such that all the sentiments may be expanded, all the faculties developed, all the vocations called out; and finally, the means of interchanging these sentiments, of applying these faculties, of rendering useful these vocations, the instruments of labor: — here is the minimum which society owes to all its members, here is the first right of every one. This is the principle of Communism.
It will be seen that we go further than certain communists who, in their embarrassment, not daring to proscribe property, define it: “The right of the individual to the thing exclusively produced by himself.” Man, in a harmonic society, appropriates to himself, by right, as we have just shown, every thing that is indispensable to his normal development, without there being any account taken of his part in production, and even before he is able to produce anything. And more than this: even after a man has completed his education, after he has acquired the rank of citizen,[9]he still finds opportunity to glean at liberty, to appropriate to himself a certain quantity of common things, which society leaves strown about, as it were, upon its surface. It is the extension of the right to the minimum; it is the principle of tolerance written in this verse of the gospel: “And it came to pass that the Lord went through the corn-fields, and his disciples plucked the ears of corn and did eat.”
Such is the first degree of participation, the first manner of acquiring, which rests absolutely on the principle of equality, and corresponds to Friendship. Among friends, every thing is common. This is appropriation in the confused mode. Let us see whether this principle of equality, so just and so necessary in its origin, can continue to control exclusively the act of appropriation.
Suppose man, under a unitary integral education, developed according to the designs of God;—what next? The unfolding of the soul is perfect, its exercise is free; it is then the Creator who proceeds to speak. Every where, to our attentive reason, inequality displays itself. Equality was in the first place necessary in order that man might produce himself entire; and from the bosom of this equality immediately springs hierarchy. Physical beauty, intellectual power, moral grandeur, every thing is different, and every thing distributed on a progressive scale. All these forces, when you come to put them in action, to apply them to the creation of riches and the government of the terrestrial life, produce unequal results; their works have different values. Thus, in human labor, the co-operation of some is more productive than that of others.
There is in this superiority, no doubt, the sign of a celestial gift, and consequently more responsibility and loftier duties; but, with the responsibility and duty, should there not also be a greater recompense? Will any one pretend to quote the authority of seminaries and academies of moral and political sciences, and oppose to us the exclusive doctrines of humility and abnegation, referring men to heaven to seek there a remuneration refused to them on earth? Certainly, we will not permit these simplistic advocates of equality to refer us to these pitiable errors, under the pretext of a social ideal. Responsibility, then, to the moat productive, to the most able; but so too a proportional recompense: and recompense in the two spheres, material and spiritual, riches and glory; for so the law of Unity requires.
To what do labors lead, directly and indirectly? To production, to appropriation. Out of this mass of wealth produced, each will have therefore (besides the minimum) a part proportional to what he has contributed, to what he has done;[10]and this part will be awarded to him by the judgment of his peers; his right will be measured and determined practically by election.
Here then is the second right of man in regard to property; here is the second manner of acquiring, which corresponds to Ambition, to the measured series. This mode is the hyper-major; this right is the fruit of the capital act of the material administration of the globe, of creation, and it is consecrated by the free election of the series, by justice itself. In the ratio of the superiority of this source, and of this sanction, more extended prerogatives are due to it. So, when the question shall arise for Social Science to determine the limits in this order of facts, to produce the special treatise upon property, it will perhaps be necessary to remember the principle uti et abuti, and to award its recompense to the right of appropriation hyper-major.
We know then now, the natural and just basis of a double right of individual appropriation. It is understood that each individual takes in the first place, freely and equally, what is necessary to his normal development; and that each, besides this, having a right to a share in the production to which he has contributed, receives from his peers a remuneration proportional to his general share in the productive forces. The minimum and the proportional retribution, analogous to Friendship and Ambition, are of the major order. Are there not other sources of appropriation? Let us look, Continuing to analyze the wants of man and the rights which correspond to these wants.
If man appropriates anything to himself, evidently it is in order to use it; if he gains anything, it is to dispose of it. Will he make what he possesses only serve the satisfaction of his physical and intellectual wants, his individual fantasies and pleasures? Will he not know how to make some use of it outside of himself. Will his right of disposing of it be simple, or will it be composite? In this world of Harmony, where all is leagued together to realize unity, will there be division, schism between the industrial and the affective man? In a society whose creed is Love, will the capital act of the appropriation of physical nature be of no profit for the heart? No, property should be an instrument of collective and of individual accords, material pleasures themselves concurring in the union of souls. Man has a need of giving, of expanding over his fellows the treasure of his riches as well as the treasure of his affections. Man therefore can transmit what belongs to him, can alienate the acquisitions of his right of property. Let us see what will be the natural modes of alienation, of transmission. By this digression we shall come more easily to know what are the two manners of acquiring of the minor order.
In Harmony, the child, exercising in the superior or religious function of Friendship (Little Hordes) abandons all[11]that he produces to the community. la this manner of disposing of property, we find the universal character which we have remarked in the appropriation of the minimum. These two modes spring from the cardinal passion of Friendship, of which they reflect the properties. We see, it is like an exchange, an advance between childhood and the state. The state makes advances, for which it is remunerated afterwards. Childhood takes and lets who will take; it satisfies its own wants and consecrates its right of alienating to the support of Unity.
In the group of Ambition, in the series of repartition, where all receive what is proportionally due to them, each one freely gives up one part of his own, which goes to make up the budget of the Regency.
There are two other manners of disposing, and consequently of acquiring, which we shall qualify by the term minor. These belong especially to sentiment, they connect more directly with individualism than with unity-ism. One is donation. “To give is to love,” said an amiable and sincere philosopher;” to receive, is to learn to love. In delicate souls, it is loving already, and that deeply.” The gift has the spontaneousness of Love; it is a want more of the hyperminor group than of any other.[12]A lover would like to have the disposal of the whole world, that he might give it away. It is in like manner the property of the ellipse, that every thing which sets out from one of its foci is referred to the other; that between the two every thing reflects and divides itself with a vivid impulse. —The other manner of acquiring, which springs from the right of using in a composite mode, is inheritance. Just as man transmits his blood, his intelligence, his soul, so it is a want and a happiness to him to bequeath this other part of himself, his property.
But it will be objected, to accept a legacy, a donation in the combined order, is to leave free field to fantasies, and to unjust caprices; it is to encourage avarice with some, narrow and blind affections with others. There is a larger way than this of deriving from the spirit of property a profit for the heart. Let every man return all that he possesses to the State:[13]is not this an exercise of the affective passions? This is giving oneself away, surely, this is expanding oneself over the bosom of the great fraternal family, without the inconvenience of little preferences and unmerited favors.—We reply, if property, once recognized, accrues entirely to the state, we see not where there exists for the individual the free exercise of the right of disposing, of it. The individual will have the right to do his duty, the right to be obliged to give to the universal, to transmit himself perforce to all his brothers.—No, no. You cannot mask by empty words the privation of the individual right. It is necessary to me, to myself, that my spontaneity, my whole liberty should be preserved. I wish to be able to dispose of what is mine in favor of all, if it suits me; in favor of some, if it is the desire of my heart; and if it is my pleasure, even enthusiastic impulse and blind fantasy shall be the reason and the measure of my gifts. Since “human nature is good,” since “reason was not made to contradict in us the propensities which lead us to form the very legitimate desire of happiness,”[14]by what right can yon deny, contradict, repress the pious attractions of familism and of love, the charming attractions of favoritism?
You wish inheritance done away with,[15]because, in our false state of society, the miser guards to the last day his useless treasure, and would bury it with him in his tomb. True science is that which knows how to turn to good, forces which are perverted or injurious. Avarice transformed, becomes a precious social faculty. There are amongst human characters, in their relation with created riches, two types, both essential. One spends, throws away, destroys; the other saves, collects, preserves. In other words, it is the spirit of progress and the spirit of social conservation; it is radiation and absorption. With the first character, impatient to use a thing, incessantly in quest of new things, every thing would be squandered, every object would disappear before exhausting its useful service; there would be no handing down. The other type forms happily the equilibrium to this. The pure conservative does not believe that any one can save things and take care of things as well as himself. In Harmony, these individual characters will extend also to collective unities. There will be Phalanxes celebrated for their spirit of order; there will be others skilful to consume brilliantly, and famous for prodigality; and such a collector or amasser of treasures in the Isle of France, not finding around him an heir worthy of his genius, and mistrusting the spendthrift ardor of the Creoles, his compatriots, will choose for his legatee the illustrious Phalanx of Fourmis, or of Judea.
But shall we stop at the uncertain objections of civilized reason, when the commandments of God are echoed in our hearts? It is a law, a law of universal life, which condemns these tendencies to exclusive equality, to confused unity; it is Attraction. God does not wish that every heart, with equal passions, shall contain an equal love for all; for he has placed in our souls the fabulist and the Papillon with Favoritism; God wishes the free and flexible fraternity of friendship, the elective ardors of love, the determined affections of the family, the hierarchal ties of ambition, the potential exercises of the successive degrees of Unity-ism; and not the compound communism of souls, the stifling of life in mere identity. Social institutions, therefore, should permit man’s natural preferences to manifest themselves in all things, if these institutions profess to realize social destinies proportional to attractions. The Series, which distributes the harmonies,[16]commands that we should expand our possessions as well as our soul in varied and hierarchal modes, or in the serial mode.
Attraction is so far from attaching us to the ideal of Communism or of Saint-Simonianism, in which all things are confounded in the mass, or in power, that when we interrogate the general fact and the sentiment which inspires it, we remark this: that the spirit of disposal or of alienation follows, since it is in the minor order, an inverse progression to that of the principle of Unity, which draws all towards the pivot; that each individual has a particular attraction to rob himself in favor of the beings who are nearest to his feelings. In a general formula, we may distribute the want of disposing by legacy and by testament, according to the following decreasing scale:
Donation: lovers, children, friends, sect; the State.
Testament: children, lovers, sect, friends; the State.
Admirable foresight of the Supreme Organizer, who does not permit Unity to absorb the individual, and who derives perfect order from the equilibrium of the two forces, the centripetal and the centrifugal. And so ought Science to encourage the attraction of the heart, instead of oppressing individual liberty.[17]In the state of social subversion in which humanity has lived thus far, it has required the compelle intrare, the law of constraint in all degrees to protect the principle of, Unity; in Harmony, on the contrary, the savans will be continually occupied with seeking delicate combinations to balance the universal and enthusiastic action of Unityism by the action of favoritism, to sow the surface of social life with the charms of surprise and of capricious fancy.
We have counted four manners of acquiring and of disposing: two major, more especially determined by reason, by the principle of order; and two minor, particularly inspired by sentiment and by liberty; all together realize justice. — These modes of participation in the social riches: the minimum, donation, proportional retribution, and inheritance, correspond to the cardinal passions, Friendship, Love, Ambition, Familism; and to the serial types: the free, the dual, the measured, and the balanced.
It remains to find a manner of acquiring, a mode of participation, having the pivotal character and corresponding to Unity-ism, and to the potential series.
This central source, from which each may draw and appropriate to himself in a unitary mode, is the Associative Treasury. From this focus of public riches descends over all the members of the Phalanx the right of property under its pivotal form. The unitary mode of appropriation consists in each one’s taking part according to his degree, in the means of enjoyment concentrated in the Phalanx.
This unitary participation, by virtue of the law of contact of extremes, offers relations with the minimum. The Communists, faithful to their principle of promiscuous equality, so much so that they do not seek to distinguish things from one another, have not failed to confound all things under the name of common goods: houses, streets, theatres, museums, cities, libraries, ball-rooms, horses, equipages, furniture, jewelry, canals, routes, rivers, laboratories, fetes and solemn galas, &c. To them, all this is identical, and all the members of association share in all these goods equally and identically. This is an error, and with a little attention, if we are guided by principles of order and harmony, we shall easily distinguish the things which society abandons promiscuously to common use, the museums, libraries, laboratories, rail-roads, public squares, &c. &c., from things equally accessible to all, but of which the whole society finds it just and useful to hierarchalize the enjoyment, so to speak. Thus, in Association, lodgings in the Phalanstery, places at the theatre, and at festivities, horses, equipages, the robes and paraphernalia of honor, the banners, every thing which we now call the furniture and jewels of the Crown,—all these things will be occupied and assigned according to an order of legitimate precedencies, in proportion to each one’s recognized rights to functions, grades, social honors and favors.
Thus, then, the public revenue is, for each one, the source of a unitary property. There is established, at the centre, a composite movement, a double harmonic vibration: the Regency receiving from the diverse ad always free contributions of the whole a considerable portion of the wealth produced, which in its turn it transforms into means of enjoyment, and places at the disposal of the whole. The Treasury of the Phalanx, how is it constituted, of what elements is it formed? From what sources can this appropriation, governed by the Regency, proceed, if it be not from the very same which nourish individual appropriation. The Regency, that is to say the phalanx considered in its collective permanent unity, takes, receives, like an individual, a proportional part, and enriches itself by when the donations and by legacies. The minor modes, as we have said, are not the most productive for the State; the Treasury accrues principally from the products of labor freely abandoned by childhood, and from the impost freely voted by all the citizens in the series and general assemblies. These four modes of appropriation which form the public revenue, have, no doubt, at this pivotal degree, their particular character; but they are analogous with the individual manners of acquiring; like them, they correspond with the four, cardinal passions; or to state it better, the public revenue in its unity, the Treasury, corresponds to Unity-ism, and, like it, it sums up in itself the four fundamental terms of the Potential Series.
Laws are the necessary relations springing from the nature of things.— Montesquieu.
We believe that human nature is good, and that there is unity in the laws of universal order. To find out social institutions of divine origin, therefore, we have examined the nature of man, his destiny, his functions, his wants, his attractions; we have analyzed the springs of his activity, that is to say his passions, their characters and their properties.
From this study of man we have deduced the essential types of order, we have methodically determined the principles and forms of the Series.
To confirm these deductions, we have looked to the kingdoms of nature for the laws of the distribution of forces, and we have found these laws conformed to the characters of human groups and to the properties of the mathematical types.
Then applying this mode of investigation to the question of property, we have Bought what modes of appropriation have naturally sprung from necessary functions. These functions, as well as the attractions of the heart, have taught us that in the matter of participation in the social riches, order results from the Series.
And thus does Unity shine out in all things.
In the question of appropriation, Science, supported upon solid bases, upon divine reasons, gives the following conclusions:
The globe belongs to the entire human species. The landed property of the township belongs to the entire Phalanx. The wealth produced is all that can be appropriated. Appropriation seeks four modes, two major and two minor. Of the two major modes, one is confused, based on the principle of equality, which is the minimum; the other is regulated, based on the principle of hierarchy, which is retribution proportional to capital, to labor, and to talent. After man has acquired riches, he uses and disposes of them freely, according to the attractions of his heart. From this right of alienating result the two minor modes of acquiring property, donation and inheritance. Finally, man participates in the public riches by drawing, each according to his degree, from the associative treasury, which accumulates in the hands of the Regency, and in conformity with the general will, after the same modes which nourish individual appropriation. In other words, we will say, man acquires:
In the major mode,
that he may have power to act — in proportion to his wants.
for having acted—in proportion I to what he does.
In the minor mode,
in proportion as he is loved.
in proportion as he loves.
Man acquires: from the commonwealth, which abandons and awards; from the individual, who gives and bequeaths.
Man acquires as a brother, as a member of a group, as an object of love, as a son and heir; and finally as a citizen.
Friendship abandons freely to every one what he wants; Love gives with tender entrainement and blind fanaticism;
Familism bequeathes affectionately, but with deliberation;
Ambition awards with reflection and according to the law of strict justice. Unity-ism distributes according to the divine laws: economy of means, distributive justice, universality of providence, unity of system. The administration of the public Treasury has for its function to balance the two terms of acquiring and disposing, and also to balance the individual and the unitary modes of action (the me and the neighbor), terms and modes of action which it sums up in itself; for the Regency is nothing but a being which receives and transmits eternally.
Let us here recall the analogical table already presented, only adding the modes of appropriation.

Such then is the ensemble of our system of appropriation of the social riches. What is wanting in this system? Can you mention a legitimate desire which it does not satisfy? And yet upon this question of property, the Associative School is continually misunderstood and calumniated. By some it is accused of wishing to annihilate all rights; others affirm that it tends to perpetuate all privileges. Which shall we credit? On both sides rash judgment is formed, and the School is condemned without a hearing.
That we should be calumniated, in the name of order, by people who are frightened by every thing new, and who have never opened a book of Fourier, is easily conceived; but that the doctrines should he misunderstood by the enlightened friends of progress and of liberty, is strange and deplorable. The author of De la Répartition des Richesses is certainly, of all writers not Phalansterian who have judged the theory, the most kindly disposed, we might say the most sympathizing. M. Vidal has read through from beginning to end the Treatise on Universal Unity; M. Vidal lives in old relations of intimacy with several Phalansterians; and yet M. Vidal does not understand the associative theory which he allows himself to judge and to condemn in the most friendly manner in the world. We shall proceed to prove in two words how far this writer is still from having penetrated the theory.
M. Vidal has comprehended so well the formula of capital, labor and talent, that he seems to have seen in it the entire basis of participation in the social wealth in Harmony. One must have read very slightly to be ignorant that this is only one of the modes of appropriation, the hyper-major, analogous to Ambition, and that this formula applies only to the repartition freely voted in the series, and proportional to the direct productive agency of each citizen. Does not Fourier speak at every page of legacy, of donation, of gratuitous education, of the proportional minimum, of unitary enjoyments furnished by the Phalanx? Certainly. Why then keep fighting windmills? Why oppose to us the gratuitous education of children, and free access to theatres, to museums, to libraries, to laboratories, and all these marvellous things of Communism—which many Communists have perceived for the first time—in Fourier? Why write these phrases, which we cannot take seriously?
The Laborer (in the Associative system) will have to live upon the generosity of the rich, and submit to the humiliation of receiving alms. And thus we shall see misery, servitude, prostitution; yes, hatreds, crimes, vices and scourges without number. . . . Capital continually detaches from the mass of the collective riches a portion which it will never restore to the community; it creates an hereditary class of idlers who live upon their income; it diminishes by just so much the number of laborers, it charges the support of this unproductive class to the laboring class. . . . I maintain that the most intelligent, the most able, the most capable has not a right to deprive the feeble or the incapable and to take the lion’s part himself; I maintain that the strongest owes his succor to the weakest, the most intelligent to the most inert. Intelligence and capacity, intellectual force, should not give a man the right to exploit his fellow man, any more than corporeal force or the power of gold We shall have wars springing up (says M. Vidal) between men who lived in peace, as soon as we undertake to divide men into separate categories, to make some first and some last, to judge, to class, to number individuals. Always there will be crosses of self-love, humiliations, and wounds incurable! . . . . If you attempt to create shares, and if the shares are to be in the ratio of capacity, then will each, from self-love, from vanity, lay claim to the largest: one will claim it in the name of his talent; another in the name of force; another perhaps will demand equality, and discord will soon arise. The moment the question of sharing is raised, Association is broken up; there is no longer one simple interest, the interest of all; face to face you have particular interests; there is the meum on the one side and the tuum on the other, and between them war! . . . . So true is it that there are[18]other relations possible besides those of equality!”
To complete this picture of the profound critic, we should have to cite still twenty passages about the hostility of classes in Harmony; passages in which the laboring classes are opposed to the capitalists; in which it is said that ” the Phalanxes have never any excess of production above their own general wants,” and that “they have nothing to sell to strangers and no profits to realize,” and that “the objects produced or created have no value,” and that ” it would be absolutely necessary that each should spend his whole dividend in the course of the year,” and a thousand other absurdities. Especially should we have to notice the ingenious calculation from which it results that an individual, who should advance ten millions in the year 1850 for the foundation of a Phalanstery, would find himself in the year 2020, merely by the accumulation of compound interest, the proprietor of the sun.
We might ask our distinguished critic if it is rational, if it is sane to apply to Association, calculations which, even in. our society of privileges, can be only child’s play. What! It is in a family of a thousand ties that you suppose these fantastic accumulations of capital possible! Verily, these are but the faux pas of the equilibrist, this is not serious analysis.
But our quotations will amply suffice to edify the reader. We ask if they can be legitimate judges of the theory, who ran not see in the minimum, in proportional repartition, in the Treasury of the Regency, in donation and legacy, any guaranties against the divisions of society into castes, against the exploitation of the laborers by the rich; who have no suspicion of the effects of the organization of labor, of the serial mechanism; who know nothing of the properties of variety and of engrenage or interlocking in the functions and in series,— and yet they demand of us what would become of the feeble and the infirm? Have we not the proportional minimum, that increasing social dowry, which is extended to the feeble and to the sick who are placed on the same footing with children?[19]Have we not, in the budget of the Phalanx, a chapter especially consecrated to religious wants? Finally, do you not feel, if you have the instinct of love in your heart, that in Harmony it will be the feeble and the infirm especially who will be the objects of pious tenderness, and who will find themselves adopted and loaded with gifts and legacies? Thus, individuals will share with the State the cares and watchful providence of devotion.
But it is objected: if there is room for any preference in retribution, it is to good will that it is due. Do you suppose then that good will is counted for nothing in the Phalanx? Do you think that the most painful labors, other things being equal, will not be paid the highest? Assuredly it is not the product which we talk of recompensing here, but it is in reality devotion. It is true that Fourier, distrusting the power of the material motive, confides to the disinterested ardor of the Little Hordes the most repugnant necessary duties. Fourier often omits the pivot in his analyses. When he says: Retribution to capital, to labor and to talent; that is to say, to the three spheres, passive, active and neuter, the pivotal sphere is necessarily understood. This, doubled, gives two new agents of production, namely, devotion and the charm of favoritism, of which account is always taken in voting the distribution of profits. It may seem strange to the communists that, in the retribution proportional to production, we still leave room for favoritism. He answers with common examples. Have you ever taken a voyage at sea? Have you observed the group of sailors at the ropes? One of them uses his voice, and his cadenced song, which diminishes somewhat his own effort, helps essentially the effort of the whole. Have you seen, in a group of laborers, some gay companion, some Pique-Vinaigre, losing his own time and strength in his recitations and his songs, but animating the group whose industrial enthusiasm grows with their gayety? This is the element of favoritism, which they will never fail to turn to good account in Harmony.
These questions of repartition will be a charming study, and they will afford occasion, in the series, in the courts, in the council of the Regency, for very deliberate and very beautiful operations, which will require the especial co-operation of woman in politics. We should like to know what political part the women in Community will find to play in the question of repartition , but doubtless this is an indiscreet question; the communist authors never occupy themselves with women except to offer them the prospect of a year’s imprisonment for some infidelity. (M. Vidal, p. 384.) Civilization is less severe; it remembers better the tolerance of Christ.
We should like, in our turn, to discuss the theories which they oppose to ours. But where can we take hold of these intangible bodies? There are as many Communisms as there are Communists. Shall we take that expounded by M. Vidal, and in which he communes with M M. Villegardelle and Louis Blanc, invoking as their patron saint, Morelly? What confusions and contradictions!
The Morellian church speculates about native kindness. It thinks that “self-love is the motive which urges us to good,” and that ” reason ought not to contradict in us the propensities which lead us to happiness.” By this it means “to base order upon destiny, which they say is happiness; to give complete satisfaction to all the natural wants, moral and physical, in the individual and in the species.” Moreover, the Morellian church proclaims the principles of Unity. “Psychology” it says “and physiology, instead of repelling and excluding each other, are the complement of one another. Between philosophy (the science of moral wants) and social economy, there should be relations and intimate connection. Economy has for its object to render the satisfaction of the moral wants and moral faculties possible. There should be an a prioriidentity between beauty, truth, and justice, and where this identity does not exist the scheme is: bad.” Certainly, these are excellent principles; but wait till you have seen the end. The first care of these Communists is completely to forget their principles. Thus, we see that the laws for the union of persons are not the same as for the association of productive forces. (p. 383, 384) Thus the principle of the hierarchy, judged excellent in the repartition of spiritual goods, is rejected as detestable in regard to material goods. Ambition, in the major mode, (love of glory) is good; ambition, in the minor mode, (love of riches) is bad. (p. 369, 373, 374, 379) In organizing their social ideal, they do not for a single instant consult destiny and the moral and physical necessities of man. So far from that, they only think of contradicting nature, or the will of God revealed by attraction and by liberty. They recognize and proclaim the truth that men are naturally unequal in forces, in faculties, in wants, in works; and yet say they should be equal in acquired rights.
Finally, we seek in vain in their system for unity, for respect to the passions of the soul, for agreement of institutions with our physical and moral wants. In place thereof, we find a plenty of maxims borrowed of Fenelon, of Seneca, of Spinoza, about contempt of riches, et ad coercendas libidines:and this truly refreshing little passage about costume: ” In these days, all men, from the prime minister to his lowest clerk, are made equal in a saloon by the monotonous uniformity of a black dress; the robe no longer makes the monk. It will be quite another matter in Association, when all men brought up together, living side by side with one another, shall know each other perfectly! People will no longer be appreciated according to their dress; rich robes will add nothing to the worth of individuals, and create no illusion for any one. The associates will adopt an elegant and convenient costume; they will make luxury consist in the extreme of neatness, in conforming to the current taste; ridicule mill do justice to the exquisites and incroyables.” Here is something to edify the artists! What a part must art play in the system of communism!
One must read the third, fourth and sixth chapters of the third part of M. Vidal’s book, if he would see to what the ideal which they oppose to us reduces itself. It is nothing less than complete insufficiency. Of any system whatsoever of organization, there is not a word said. Yet it would seem as if the mechanism would need to be perfected by those who retrench one very important motive of activity. They do not even know positively whether labor can or can not be rendered attractive, (p. 367 et passim.) To resolve their doubt on this point, they wish to wait for an experiment of the system of Fourier. Fourier organizes labor and industry; they have not thought of such a thing. Fourier, in this organization, at once learned, delicate and imposing, utilizes all our physical and moral wants; they, in the absence of all mechanism, retrench the motive of personality, of property and the love of riches at one’s own disposal. We say: interest, honor, pleasure, duty; they say: duty, honor, fear. We are, as Fourier says in some of his sublime bursts of enthusiasm, the advocates of the twelve passions;they reduce the five sensitive passions to a competent allowance, to the modest habit in black, and to the black broth of perfectibility; they diminish the force of Ambition by half, disdain Love and Familism, shut the door upon the Cabalist and the Papillon, and treat Favoritism as the inspiration of the devil. The model par excellence which they would offer us, is the civilized family and the manners of the actual household, (p. 351 and 379: opinions of M M. Vidal and Louis Blanc.) But as they are very properly aware that family tenderness does not suffice in the social mechanism, they decide to introduce in the gentlest manner possible the compelle intrare. And they must necessarily come to this, since they admit the hypothesis that labor may not become attractive. On every page we find this means in reserve, this principle of constraint. ” In an emergency, it is said, the associates will be subjected to the recruiting law. They will decree, that every citizen, from eighteen to twenty years, without exception, shall be bound to serve in the corps of public utility.” O inflexible logicians! here then we have the bottom of the bag; here the “Committee of Public Safety” shows the tip of its ear, and under your mantle of socialism, we ran fancy that we see the sincere but stern figures of Robespierre and Saint-Just.
Meanwhile we cannot refuse our sympathies to the Communists, for they have a true devotion to the poorer classes.[20]They are men who live almost exclusively in Friendship, and who never feel at home except with the idea of fraternity and the principle of equality. Pure republicans, starting from the same principle, tend, no doubt, to the same result in Communism. Their mistake is, having adopted the sacred motto: liberty, equality, fraternity, to subordinate every thing to the second term, and to neglect the first, which, philosophically speaking, is the most important. From their point of view, they doubtless are inspired. It is undeniable that the first end to be attained, the minimum, corresponds to equality, and Fourier has not forgotten, in his highest order of supreme combinations, that our planet corresponds to friendship. But in the mechanism of the distribution of wealth, to restrict oneself to this, is to dream of an order incomplete, oppressive, and unstable, since it is overlooking the demands of the two minor and the hyper-major passions. You seem to see a universal fellowship, an immense circle where all hands are joined, where the electric spark runs in a living chain, but where the hierarchal relations of ambition, where the preferences and most intimate tendernesses of love, and the embraces of the family are not counted. Since some power is necessary, they have decided to place it in the centre of the fraternal circle, isolated, severe and full of rudeness. Do you not feel how destitute of charm this puritanical world would be, and how irksomeness, ennui, coldness, would penetrate very quickly into this monotonous round, where art and love and fantasy find nothing to do?
If you push the principle of equality a little rigorously, it leads to absurdity; it is what occurs with every simplistic principle, and for this reason it is just to say: Excess is injurious in every thing. But you may push the Series to the end, to the utmost limit, and into the infinite; still it engenders only order; you will never derive from it anything but Unity and Harmony. In a word, the Communists are simply this: people who are weary of the present evils, and who seek to escape from them by the way which seems to them the shortest and the easiest. M. Prudhon, without insisting otherwise upon the absolute value of his principles, frankly avows that he wants to make an end of them; others have not the same frankness, or, making to themselves scientific illusions, they qualify their notion of a social ideal, after taking care to pocket the difficulties of the problem. At bottom, they have meditated so little upon the reasons of things, that they will tell you, for example: “The Communists would willingly accept the Phalanstery, but on the condition of modifying the respective rights of the associates and of distributing the products in some other way;” that is to say, the Phalanstery without the series, without unity. They will tell you moreover: “Ah! if instead of proposing the association of men and of things, the disciples of Fourier had proposed directly the association of individuals, then capital, the supreme element of discord, would not have existed, the series would have distributed the harmonies!” (Same work, pages 453 and 455.) We are truly grateful for this kind advice, but we cannot change the principle of the Series at the will of our own gratitude; we cannot make the Series to be other than it is. Unhappily we are not permitted to return courtesy for courtesy to the Communists, for a peremptory reason: it is because the only thing which positively constitutes their school, the simplistic love of equality, excludes the Series. Let us sum up in a few words the Communist idea of appropriation. This idea almost entirely absorbs three terms out of the five which constitute the soul in its cardinal character; it only speculates upon friendship and unity-ism, and (what is more) it overlooks the inverse pivot. Does one of the four necessary passions singly produce Unity? Can you make musical harmony with do, Do (octave,) as well as with do mi sol si Do, without counting all the other notes of the gamut, the passional correspondences of which we have not discussed? Thus the Communist idea, in its organization, leaves room only for the free series and for a bastard sort of potential series. The Communists affect us very much like children well-disposed and intelligent, who, playing with the cone, turning it round and round, have remarked indeed that it forms a unity and that it rests upon a circular base, (which is more than their papas, the political economists, had seen,) but, inexpert at analysis, they have not thought to cut the cone and to investigate its interior properties. Their science, altogether juvenile, stops at the surface.
The Associative School does not fear to front the difficulties of problems. It does not evoke the fallacious image of an equality impossible, and oppressive even if it could be for a moment realized. It consults sentiment as well as reason; it satisfies complete liberty as well as perfect order, Individualism as well as Unityism. In short it founds its whole theory upon nature and upon the soul.
One final objection remains to be considered. If you accept donation, inheritance, individual appropriation, the privileges of favor, and so forth, what is there that is new in your doctrine? — We shall reply (and let our word be beard by those who cry out that there is nothing new under the sun,) we shall reply: There is nothing new in this world, except it be Integrality, or (he free, large, intelligent acceptation of the supreme dogma of Variety in Unity.
Humanity, creating to itself institutions in proportion to its development, could only find their principle in these essential forces of the soul. The different modes of appropriation, successively engendered in the great historical periods, had then their necessary correspondence with the cardinal passions.
Edenism had its first sketches of Harmony, where no doubt the social institutions gave combined satisfaction to all the passions. In Savageism, society sinks, through want of industry, into an unlimited Communism with regard to territory; but with exclusive appropriation of the fruits harvested and the animals slain. Soon, as society tries to settle down and subdivide its elements, man wishes, before he dies, to perpetuate his force and substance; hence inheritance and legitimacy and the right of age: this is the conservative, traditional principle, which constitutes Patriarchalism. From inheritance and from the right of the firm occupant, which appears when human activity takes the land by main force, results the abusive concentration of riches in the sole hands of the Barbarian chieftain, who, alone rich and alone master, gives exclusively to his favorites, according to the attraction of his heart and his own good pleasure. Finally, Civilization attempts to apply the principle of proportional retribution; it organizes a false hierarchy. Each of these periods borrows the institutions before established, modifying them according to its own character; but the harmonic repartition is as yet far from being realized: divisions of men into castes, servitude, slavery, hired labor, such are the consequences of these false, incomplete and oppressive systems. Civilization, in spite of the influences of Christianity, has often only legalized all the anterior abuses, in consecrating them by the pretended reasons of sacred rights. Have we not seen this very year an assemblage of important men, very civilized and very Christian, call in question and take away in part from the poor the right of gleaning, raking, picking up and appropriating, — those vestiges of the right to the minimum, which Barbarism and Patriarchalism had respected?
Seeing this, these brave little hordes, as it were, of social science, plunge forward with audacity, protest against abuses and against the principles which cause them, blaspheme against the passions as the first sources of evil. In short, they see no other way of triumphing over the present false system of property, but by overturning property itself, riding roughshod over principles, and mortifying the human soul.
But the genius of Fourier has illuminated the world. The sovereign science tells us: The forces, the springs of the soul, are essential, and always the same; only the manifestation, only the modes of this activity vary. To misunderstand or repress the passions, the principles of all activity, of every idea and of every form, is madness; the only wise way is to make them useful. The institutions of property which the world has thus far produced, are faulty; they must be transformed so that they shall become harmonic instead of continuing oppressive; but do not reject the principles from which they emanate. They are the natural sources of truth. If you would realize harmony, the kingdom of God, do not forget any one of the fundamental passions, do not suffer any right to sleep. You will have order and happiness, it you know how to apply to your terrestrial government, universality of providence and unity of system, those, essential attributes of the divine power. Would you know the modes of appropriation, seek them in the essential principles of the passions and conform them to the series. The manners of acquiring practised in the forms of society which have existed thus far, are false merely by their exclusiveness and by excess, the necessary consequence of simplism. Bring these different modes together and combine them in an equilibrium and in a hierarchy; and you will have the natural system. Integrality is unity, is harmony itself.
Such is the mission of science: to destroy not principles, but their abuses; to transform, to perfect, to render unitary. This mission is religiously accomplished by Fourier and by his School. The question of participation in the social riches, we resolve, then, by the unitary combination of all these modes: the minimum; retribution proportional to capital, to labor and to talent; donation; inheritance; and the Associative Treasury. In other words, as faithful interpreters of Attraction, seeing man revealed to us in his cardinal passions, Friendship, Love, Familism, Ambition, Unityism, we cannot solve the social problem of appropriation otherwise than by the series, which arrives at Unityonly by the harmonic distribution of Variety.
D. Laverdant.

[1] By different powers, the writer means the successive ramifications of the same series into a greater and greater number of elements. Thus we begin with Unity. This unfolds first into Three primary elements, which are a series of the first power. These unfold again into Seven and Twelve, the numbers of the musical octave, which Fourier calls indifferently the series of the second power; these unfold farther into Thirty-two, the series of the third power, and so on. Now man is a series of elements, whether we regard his passional nature, the series of motive springs, or impulses, or attractions, in him; or whether we regard him as a combination of physical members, bones, muscles, nerves, &c.; or whether we regard the internal constitution of each of these. Every thing in nature out of man, and every thing in the contemplated serial order of society called Association, takes therefore a form which is one of the powers of that original series. the type of all others, which exists in the passional or spiritual elements of man.—translator.]
[2] “The sacred four, source of nature and model of the Gods.”—Pythagoras.
[3] The principle and rule of Duty reside entirely in the accomplishment of general Destiny. The two terms, Collective Destiny and Duty, arc the two poles, objective and subjective, of the same idea.
[4] It is known, that shortly after the publication of his work of 1808, Fourier, taking a step beyond established science, gave the Aromal a place among the great movements of Life, and disengaged the Passionalas pivot. Henceforth we can no longer count threekingdoms in nature; there are four, besides the pivotal or Hominal kingdom, which correspond to the four movements: the material, the aromal, the organic, the instinctual;  X the passional.
[5] One trait, among external forms, characterizes the supreme unity of human races among themselves. On the plant, on the tree, the branches and the roots are very dissimilar and of indeterminate number; in the feet, the claws, the fins of different animal species, the fingers, the articulations vary in number and very sensibly also in their form. Among the species of the nominal kingdom, the fingers, which, in the unitary plan of the creation, figure the roots and branches, are every where, alike in their number, their articular distribution, and their general form.
[6] M. Vidal, in his book on the Repartition of Richets, wishing to demonstrate that all social functions are equal in value and ought to be equally rewarded, says: “It would be as absurd to discuss the utility, the social value of different functions, as to discuss the utility of La or Mi.” The socialist writer, surely, is not a musician, if he thinks to attribute an equal value and importance; to all the notes of an indeterminate gamut.
[7] We might, by doubling the pivot, name here also the series of favoritism, where all fixed principle is contradicted, and all rule broken by caprice.
[8] Hugh Doherty says that Adam is nothing but a swarm of colonizers from the upper worlds. This hypothesis, which the laws of analogy render very rational, is equally favorable to our proposition.
[9] We need not state that we wish to be understood as speaking here of woman, as well as of man, and that in Harmony, the rights of citizenship, election, government, &.c., pertain to both sexes.
[10] This is the principle of Fourier: Proportional Repartition to Capital, to Labor and to Talent. This principle is found mutilated and perverted in the Saint-Simonian formula: “To each according to hit capacity, and to each capacity according to its work.”
[11] Let as remember that all, in the phraseology of movement, always understands an exception. Here are Fourier’s words about the retribution of the Little Hordes: “Although their labor is the most difficult from the want of direct attraction, yet the Little Hordes receive the lowest remuneration of all the Series. They would not accept anything, if such a refusal were admitted in Association. As it is, they take only the smallest part, which does not prevent each of their members from gaining the first lots in other occupations; but, true to their character of congregation, of unitary philanthropy, they have for a statute the indirectcontempt of riches, and devotion to the repugnant functions which they exercise as a point of honor.”
[12] It is a rare thing that one ruins himself for his friends, his corporation, or even for his children: but nothing is more common than a man committing such follies for his mistress, especially than a woman sacrificing every thing to her lover or her husband. It is a rare thing that one ruins himself for his friends, his corporation, or even for his children: but nothing is more common than a man committing such follies for his mistress, especially than a woman sacrificing every thing to her lover or her husband.
[13] Morelly, whom the communists seem to accept as their master (so far as a communist can recognize any superiority,) Morelly says in a concise way; “There belongs to man of the products of his industry only the part which he uses; the rest belongs to humanity.” A singular mixture this of materialism, egoism and of universal fraternity!
[14] Morelly, M. M. Vidal, Villegardelle, and all the communists. The Saint-Simonians also acknowledge these just bases.
[15] We need not say that we do not defend the right of age, the spirit of caste, the privileges of education and other monstrous forms of inheritance, which patriarchalism has handed down to civilization. In view of the actual abuses, M. Eugene Sue has reason to exclaim: “Inheritance, that great iniquity!” But the illustrious socialist writer has too much justice to condemn a principle on account of the abuses which have been derived from it. As well condemn possession itself; as well proscribe the spirit of family from which the whole evil proceeds.
[16] Here let us make an important observation. We must not believe that every Series distributes every harmony. When Fourier makes use of the general terms Series and Attraction, in these two sacred propositions: the Series distribute the harmonies; Attractions are proportional to destinies; he means to say integral attraction, the series par excellence, the series of series. This is evident from the following phrase in his last manuscript published in La Phalange: “We come to nothing by studying the free series; the whole secret of nature is concealed in the measuredseries; they are the only echoes of the laws of Unity.”
[17] Victor Considerant said one day: “If individual appropriation, if inheritance and donation did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them in order to perfect social harmony.” This property of a harmonic bond, which capital possesses in Association, has been expressed a thousand times in the most formal manner by Fourier. It was altogether gratuitous therefore in M. Vidal to write: “Fourier has not, like the Saint-Simonians and other socialists, broken openly with capital and inheritance. He has circumvented them, he has turned them, rendering them in some sort useless in the future.”
[18] The misprint which we reproduce from the text is charming. We can imagine it done treacherously and on purpose by some intelligent corrector of the press.
[19] In rain will civilization attempt to realize justice in the repartition of wealth, to long u it does not recognize the minimum. The minimum is the necessary basis; without it, donation and inheritance are, as we have said, social iniquities.
[20] M. Vidal. whose ill-founded criticisms and narrow doctrines we have animadverted upon, is otherwise a distinguished, erudite, impassioned writer, the most energetic adversary whom the political economists, have encountered since Fourier. He knows very well bow to combat error when he addresses himself to that. For the rest, be will have rendered a true service to the Associative School, in forcing it to develop ideas which it is not every one that knows how to seize precisely in the books of Fourier.

Comments Off on Gabriel-Desire Laverdant, “Of Property”

Filed under Gabriel-Desire Laverdant, property, The Harbinger