very imperfectly the teaching of Hus. He displays little of the insight into the genius and influence of the Reformation and of Calvinism so conspicuously manifested both by Ranke and Mignet. He indicates well the services of Richelieu, but overlooks the mischievous tendencies of his policy. He characterises the historical personages whom he deems the representatives of individualism chiefly by their defects; and those whom he regards as the prophets of fraternity almost entirely by their best qualities, or their mere professions, or the grand and generous intentions which he himself attributes to them. He vigorously denounces the Terror as at once wicked and foolish, yet, in part and by implication, justifies it in representing it as an inevitable fatality. For so representing it he certainly gives no solid reasons. Some of the guiltiest of the Terrorists he portrays as the prophets, heroes, and martyrs of the faith which is to save society and to rule the future.

The historical philosophy of M. Blanc is so feeble, so meagre, and so vague that I must not dwell on it further.

The socialistic theorists whose historical speculations have been under consideration in this chapter had no keener or more outspoken opponent than P. J. Proudhon (1804-69), who was commonly regarded as himself the most extreme and dangerous of socialists, although he was really much more of an extravagant individualist. He was very radical and revolutionary: his social ideal was an-archy,-absolute equality, the absence of government,-which he held was not to be confounded with anarchy―i.e., chaos or disorder. Possessed of rare ability as a polemic, and reckless of restraints in regard to the manner of exercising it, he assailed and ridiculed with tremendous effect the doctrines of the Saint-Simonians and Fourierists, of Leroux and Louis Blanc. Unfortunately he was as indulgent a judge of his own ideas as he was a severe critic of those of other people. Besides, he changed his opinions very often; indulged most liberally in exaggerated statements and in self-contradiction; proclaimed that he had got possession of truths when he was merely hoping to find them; and never did attain the proved and definitive system which he sought for. He loved to startle the public by audacious propositions, la propriété, c'est

le vol; Dieu, c'est le mal, and the like,-regardless of the misconceptions which they would cause and of the needless offence which they would give. Yet he was not only a man of great talent but of many estimable qualities of character. In the most violent of his controversies he took no mean advantages and showed no malignity; although intensely in sympathy with the working classes, far from flattering them, like Lamartine, Ledru Rollin, Louis Blanc, and so many others, he never hesitated to tell them the most disagreeable truths in the plainest way; notwithstanding his avowed contempt for women in general he showed due respect for them individually, and was an excellent husband and the affectionate father of two daughters; and rigid honesty, abhorrence of licentiousness, helpfulness to the unfortunate, and absolute faith in justice, were among his most prominent traits. He had an original and resourceful intellect, a rich and good nature, and remarkable literary gifts, but was so deficient in self-restraint and patience, calmness and moderation, that the fruits of his mind and activity never ripened, but were forced to appear as crude and undeveloped thoughts, abortive schemes and efforts, or even outbursts of passion, vanity, and impiety, which did great injustice alike to his talents and to his deeper and better self.1

Proudhon has in several of his writings treated of history. His 'De la Création de l'Ordre dans l'Humanité (3d ed., 1849) has for its central and ruling conception an historical hypothesis. It is, however, one directly borrowed, although without explicit acknowledgment, from Comte. Proudhon expressed it thus: "Religion, philosophy, science; faith, sophistic, and method; such are the three moments of knowledge, the three epochs of the education of the human race." He endeavoured to prove it by a somewhat lengthened examination of religion and philosophy, and concludes in the following terms:

2

'Without religion humanity would have perished at its birth; without philosophy it would have remained in an eternal infancy: but the opinion that religion and philosophy have meant anything

1 The character of Proudhon can be best studied in his 'Correspondance,' 14 vols., 1875. Besides the articles of Ferraz (op. cit.), Renouvier (Crit. phil.), and Franck (Dict.), see Sainte-Beuve's 'Proudhon, sa vie et sa correspondance,' 1872.

2 P. 10.

more than a particular state of consciousness and intelligence has been the worst malady of the human mind. Religion and philosophy, conceived of, the first as a revelation of divine dogmas, the second as the science of causes, have filled the earth with fanatics and fools. . . . A little of philosophy has always mingled with religion; a breath of religion has always penetrated philosophy. Christianity was a philosophical religion, the most philosophical of religions: Confucius, Plato, the apostle Paul, Rousseau, Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, Chateaubriand, have been religious philosophers. Their writings are immortal: but of all the things which it most concerns us to know, and of which they have sometimes spoken with an eloquence so grand, they have known nothing, and have taught us nothing; and the combination of contrary qualities which we observe in them has been without profit to science. How great, then, is the illusion of those who now speak of uniting, as two realities, philosophy and religion? Theology has fallen, sophistic has been struck dead: there is no more religion, there is no philosophy." 1

Having reached this result M. Proudhon forthwith proceeds to expound a philosophy of his own, akin to the philosophy of Comte, although directly drawn to a greater extent from the teaching of Kant, Fourier, and Ampère. It is a sort of theory or logic of science, and he calls it Metaphysics, not improbably just because of Comte's repudiation of the term. He next treats of what he designates Political Economy, but by which he means all science that bears on economical, political, and social organisation. The laws of Political Economy thus understood he holds to be the laws of history: and thus is led to set forth his views on history (pp. 340-404).

He defines it as the succession of states through which the mind and society pass before the former attains pure science and the latter the realisation of its laws." He argues that it is properly speaking not science, but only matter of science; and that it is an evolution the laws of which are those that Political Economy ought to ascertain and expound. He throws out a considerable number of interesting remarks and plausible generalisations regarding the movement of history under the action of these laws, and the perturbations which follow from their violation; but he fails to combine them into any consistent whole. The general impression produced is confused and disappointing. He follows Saint-Simon and Fourier in

1 P. 96.

attempting to elucidate history by the conception of the series, and, as he supposes, Hegel by applying to its evolution the formula of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

In the work just referred to, Proudhon has treated of the notion and fact of progress at considerable length, but with arbitrary ingenuity, uselessly quibbling over mere words and phrases, and arriving at no clear general result. He has, however, dealt with the subject in a far more able and satisfactory manner in his later and much more important work, 'De la Justice dans la Révolution et dans l'Église.' Here he has shown with great effectiveness the vagueness, superficiality, and exaggerations of the representations given of progress by ordinary theorists and eulogists; and has traced them to their source, a want of insight into what human progress really is. It does not follow that there must be such progress because population or wealth is increasing, or because the arts and sciences are advancing. While any or all of these things are happening, man himself may be deteriorating; he may be losing in independence, in virtue, in manhood. But the true progress of man implies the true progress of men; and, therefore, can only be their own work, and must be inclusive especially of what distinguishes them as men. Its chief criteria must be found not in what is external to or independent of man, but in what is most essentially his own and constitutive of himself,— liberty and justice. All development which is not due to man's own energy, and which does not tend towards justice in all the relations of life, must be merely an illusory semblance of progress. True historical progress, having for its condition freedom and for its end the establishment of justice, may be defined as "la justification de l'humanité par elle-même sous l'excitation de l'idéal." It is no organic evolution or inevitable necessity: decadence is possible, and has often occurred; it takes place whenever justice is only feebly and partially sought for, or when any other ideal is preferred to that of justice. For Proudhon, justice consists of equality, and whatever creates inequality is unjust. Hence, while a decided opponent of communism, he was also an enemy of property in land, of the exclusive possession by individuals of the instruments of labour, and of the remuneration of work according to any other scale than duration.

He clearly saw, however, what communists have almost always failed to see, that the pursuit of equality as the ideal of justice could not lead to wealth but to indigence: that, for example, were his ideal obtained, the annual income of France could not give more than three francs per day to each French family of four persons; and consequently, that the existing state of variety of fortunes in the nation would be replaced not by one of abundance for all, but by one of universal poverty. But this caused him neither fear nor regret. Always poor, always laborious, he never complained either of poverty or of labour. He held that labour requires poverty and that poverty is the condition of labour; that they are naturally conjoined, and that both are necessary to the moral development of man. He indulged in no excesses of sentimentalism over the toils and hardships of the poor; he was fierce in his denunciations of the frivolity, the luxury, and the immorality of the rich. Wealth, not poverty, was in his eyes the evil which had to be overcome; the evil which corrupts individuals and ruins communities.

Proudhon's intense conviction of the reality and supremacy of moral law was what gave its chief attraction and value to the historical theory expounded in his 'De la Justice.' A narrow and extreme view of its all-sufficiency and exclusive legitimacy was the source of its most pervading defect. He unnaturally opposed justice to piety, morality to religion. He contended that the decay of faith was the indispensable condition of the development both of reason and of virtue; and that all history teaches the necessity of getting rid of religion. His historical theory is thus, while profoundly moral, thoroughly anti-religious. The book in which he has most fully expounded it is a continuous assault on religion; representing it as a power which invariably perverts reason and conscience, and produces weakness and disorder in society.1

In his 'La Guerre et la Paix,' Proudhon committed himself to a defence of the right of force and of conquest which cannot

1 Proudhon's teaching in favour of the separation of morality from religion and philosophy was adopted by a school or party which had for some years an organ in the weekly press of Paris, 'La Morale Indépendante,' 1865-69. Its chief contributors were Mme. Coignet and MM. Massol and Morin. For an examination

of the fundamental theses maintained in it, see E. Caro, 'Problèmes de Morale Sociale,' ch. i. -iii.