Such is the use made, for instance, of the word _invasion_.

A master of French iron-works, exclaims: Save us from the _invasion_ of English iron. An English landholder cries; Let us oppose the _invasion_ of French corn. And forthwith all their efforts are bent upon raising barriers between these two nations. Thence follows isolation; isolation leads to hatred; hatred to war; and war to _invasion_. What matters it?

say the two _Sophists_; is it not better to expose ourselves to a possible _invasion_, than to meet a certain one? And the people believe; and the barriers are kept up.

And yet what a.n.a.logy can exist between an exchange and an invasion? What resemblance can possibly be discovered between a man-of-war, vomiting fire, death, and desolation over our cities--and a merchant vessel, which comes to offer in free and peaceable exchange, produce for produce?

Much in the same way has the word _inundation_ been abused. This word is generally taken in a bad sense; and it is certainly of frequent occurrence for inundations to ruin fields and sweep away harvests. But if, as is the case in the inundations of the Nile, they were to leave upon the soil a superior value to that which they carried away, we ought, like the Egyptians, to bless and deify them. Would it not be well, before declaiming against the _inundations_ of foreign produce, and checking them with expensive and embarra.s.sing obstacles, to certify ourselves whether these inundations are of the number which desolate, or of those which fertilize a country? What would we think of Mehemet Ali, if, instead of constructing, at great expense, dams across the Nile to increase the extent of its inundations, he were to scatter his piasters in attempts to deepen its bed, that he might rescue Egypt from the defilement of the _foreign_ mud which is swept down upon it from the mountains of the Moon? Exactly such a degree of wisdom do we exhibit, when at the expense of millions, we strive to preserve our country....

From what? From the blessings with which Nature has gifted other climates.

Among the _metaphors_ which sometimes conceal, each in itself, a whole theory of evil, there is none more common than that which is presented under the words _tribute_ and _tributary_.

These words are so frequently employed as synonyms of _purchase_ and _purchaser_, that the terms are now used almost indifferently. And yet there is as distinct a difference between a _tribute_, and a _purchase_, as between a _robbery_ and an _exchange_. It appears to me that it would be quite as correct to say, Cartouche has broken open my strong-box, and, has _bought_ a thousand crowns from me, as to state, as I have heard done to our honorable deputies, We have paid in _tribute_ to Germany the value of a thousand horses which she has sold us.

The action of Cartouche was not a _purchase_, because he did not put, and with my consent, into my strong box an equivalent value to that which he took out. Neither could the purchase-money paid to Germany be _tribute_, because it was not on our part a forced payment, gratuitously received on hers, but a willing compensation from us for a thousand horses, which we ourselves judged to be worth 500,000 francs.

Is it necessary then seriously to criticise such abuses of language?

Yes, for very seriously are they put forth in our books and journals.

Nor can we flatter ourselves that they are the careless expressions of uneducated writers, ignorant even of the terms of their own language.

They are current with a vast majority, and among the most distinguished of our writers. We find them in the mouths of our d'Argouts, Dupins, Villeles; of peers, deputies and ministers; men whose words become laws, and whose influence might establish the most revolting Sophisms, as the basis of the administration of their country.

A celebrated modern Philosopher has added to the categories of Aristotle the Sophism which consists in expressing in one word a _pet.i.tio principii_. He cites several examples, and might have added the word _tributary_ to his nomenclature. For instance, the question is to determine whether foreign purchases are useful or hurtful. You answer, hurtful. And why? Because they render us _tributary_ to foreigners.

Truly here is a word, which begs the question at once.

How has this delusive figure of speech introduced itself into the rhetoric of monopolists?

Money is _withdrawn from the country_ to satisfy the rapacity of a victorious enemy: money is also _withdrawn from the country_ to pay for merchandise. The a.n.a.logy is established between the two cases, calculating only the point of resemblance and abstracting that by which they differ.

And yet it is certainly true, that the non-reimburs.e.m.e.nt in the first case, and the reimburs.e.m.e.nt freely agreed upon in the second, establishes between them so decided a difference, as to render it impossible to cla.s.s them under the same category. To be obliged, with a dagger at your throat, to give a hundred francs, or to give them willingly in order to obtain a desired object,--truly these are cases in which we can perceive little similarity. It might just as correctly be said, that it is a matter of indifference whether we eat our bread, or have it thrown into the water, because in both cases it is destroyed. We here draw a false conclusion, as in the case of the word _tribute_, by a vicious manner of reasoning, which supposes an entire similitude between two cases, their resemblance only being noticed and their difference suppressed.

CONCLUSION.

All the Sophisms which I have so far combated, relate to the restrictive policy; and some even on this subject, and those of the most remarkable, I have, in pity to the reader, pa.s.sed over: _acquired rights_; _unsuitableness_; _exhaustion of money_, _etc._, _etc._

But Social economy is not confined within this narrow circle.

Fourierism, Saint Simonism, Commonism, agrarianism, anti-rentism, mysticism, sentimentalism, false philanthropy, affected aspirations for a chimerical equality and fraternity; questions relative to luxury, wages, machinery; to the pretended tyranny of capital; to colonies, outlets, population; to emigration, a.s.sociation, imposts, and loans, have enc.u.mbered the field of Science with a crowd of parasitical arguments,--_Sophisms_, whose rank growth calls for the spade and the weeding-hoe.

I am perfectly sensible of the defect of my plan, or rather absence of plan. By attacking as I do, one by one, so many incoherent Sophisms, which clash, and then again often mingle with each other, I am conscious that I condemn myself to a disorderly and capricious struggle, and am exposed to perpetual repet.i.tions.

I should certainly much prefer to state simply how things _are_, without troubling myself to contemplate the thousand aspects under which ignorance _supposes_ them to be.... To lay down at once the laws under which society prospers or perishes, would be _virtually_ to destroy at once all Sophisms. When Laplace described what, up to his time, was known of the movements of celestial bodies, he dissipated, without even naming them, all the astrological reveries of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Hindoos, much more certainly than he could have done by attempting to refute them directly, through innumerable volumes. Truth is one, and the work which expounds it is an imposing and durable edifice. Error is multiple, and of ephemereal nature. The work which combats it, cannot bear in itself a principle of greatness or of durability.

But if power, and perhaps opportunity, have been wanting to me, to enable me to proceed in the manner of Laplace and of Say, I still cannot but believe that the mode adopted by me has also its modest usefulness.

It appears to me likewise to be well suited to the wants of the age, and to the broken moments which it is now the habit to s.n.a.t.c.h for study.

A treatise has without doubt an incontestable superiority. But it requires to be read, meditated, and understood. It addresses itself to the select few. Its mission is first to fix attention, and then to enlarge the circle of acquired knowledge.

A work which undertakes the refutation of vulgar prejudices, cannot have so high an aim. It aspires only to clear the way for the steps of Truth; to prepare the minds of men to receive her; to rectify public opinion, and to s.n.a.t.c.h from unworthy hands dangerous weapons which they misuse.

It is above all, in social economy, that this hand-to-hand struggle, this ever-reviving combat with popular errors, has a true practical utility.

Sciences might be arranged in two categories. Those of the first cla.s.s whose application belongs only to particular professions, can be understood only by the learned; but the most ignorant may profit by their fruits. We may enjoy the comforts of a watch; we may be transported by locomotives or steamboats, although knowing nothing of mechanism and astronomy. We walk according to the laws of equilibrium, while entirely ignorant of them.

But there are sciences whose influence upon the public is proportioned only to the information of that public itself, and whose efficacy consists not in the acc.u.mulated knowledge of some few learned heads, but in that which has diffused itself into the reason of man in the aggregate. Such are morals, hygiene, social economy, and (in countries where men belong to themselves) political economy. Of these sciences Bentham might above all have said: "It is better to circulate, than to advance them." What does it profit us that a great man, even a G.o.d, should promulgate moral laws, if the minds of men, steeped in error, will constantly mistake vice for virtue, and virtue for vice? What does it benefit us that Smith, Say, and, according to Mr. de St. Chamans, political economists of _every school_, should have proclaimed the superiority in all commercial transactions, of _liberty_ above _restraint_, if those who make laws, and for whom laws are made, are convinced of the contrary?

These sciences, which have very properly been named _social_, are again peculiar in this, that they, being of common application, no one will confess himself ignorant of them. If the object be to determine a question in chemistry or geometry, n.o.body pretends to have an innate knowledge of the science, or is ashamed to consult Mr. Thenard, or to seek information from the pages of Legendre or Bezout. But in the social sciences authorities are rarely acknowledged. As each individual daily acts upon his own notions whether right or wrong, of morals, hygiene, and economy; of politics, whether reasonable or absurd, each one thinks he has a right to prose, comment, decide, and dictate in these matters.

Are you sick? There is not a good old woman in the country who is not ready to tell you the cause and the remedy of your sufferings. "It is from humors in the blood," says she, "you must be purged." But what are these humors, or are there any humors at all? On this subject she troubles herself but little. This good old woman comes into my mind, whenever I hear an attempt made to account for all the maladies of the social body, by some trivial form of words. It is superabundance of produce, tyranny of capital, industrial plethora, or other such nonsense, of which, it would be fortunate if we could say: _Verba et voces praetereaque nihil_, for these are errors from which fatal consequences follow.

From what precedes, the two following results may be deduced: 1st. That the social sciences, more than others, necessarily abound in _Sophisms_, because in their application, each individual consults only his own judgment and his own instincts. 2d. That in these sciences _Sophisms_ are especially injurious, because they mislead opinion on a subject in which opinion is power--is law.

Two kinds of books then are necessary in these sciences, those which teach, and those which circulate; those which expound the truth, and those which combat error.

I believe that the inherent defect of this little work, _repet.i.tion_, is what is likely to be the cause of its princ.i.p.al utility. Among the Sophisms which it has discussed, each has undoubtedly its own formula and tendency, but all have a common root; and this is, the _forgetfulness of the interests of men, considered as consumers_. By showing that a thousand mistaken roads all lead to this great _generative_ Sophism, I may perhaps teach the public to recognize, to know, and to mistrust it, under all circ.u.mstances.

After all, I am less at forcing convictions, than at waking doubts.

I have no hope that the reader as he lays down my book will exclaim, _I know_. My aspirations will be fully satisfied, if he can but sincerely say, _I doubt_.

"I doubt, for I begin to fear that there may be something illusory in the supposed blessings of scarcity." (Sophism I.)

"I am not so certain of the beneficial effect of obstacles." (Sophism II.)

"_Effort without result_, no longer appears to me so desirable as _result without effort_." (Sophism III.)

"I understand that the more an article has been labored upon, the more is its _value_. But in trade, do two _equal_ values cease to be equal, because one comes from the plough, and the other from the workshop?"

(Sophism XXI.)

"I confess that I begin to think it singular that mankind should be the better of hindrances and obstacles, or should grow rich upon taxes; and truly I would be relieved from some anxiety, would be really happy to see the proof of the fact, as stated by the author of "the Sophisms,"

that there is no incompatibility between prosperity and justice, between peace and liberty, between the extension of labor and the advance of intelligence." (Sophisms XIV and XX.)

"Without, then, giving up entirely to arguments, which I am yet in doubt whether to look upon as fairly reasoned, or as paradoxical, I will at least seek enlightenment from the masters of the science."

I will now terminate this sketch by a last and important recapitulation.

The world is not sufficiently conscious of the influence exercised over it by _Sophistry_.

When _might ceases to be right_, and the government of mere _strength_ is dethroned, _Sophistry_ transfers the empire to _cunning and subtilty_. It would be difficult to determine which of the two tyrannies is most injurious to mankind.

Men have an immoderate love for pleasure, influence, consideration, power--in a word, for riches; and they are, by an almost unconquerable inclination, pushed to procure these, at the expense of others.

But these _others_, who form the public, have a no less strong inclination to keep what they have acquired; and this they will do, if they have the _strength_ and the _knowledge_ to effect it.

Spoliation, which plays so important a part in the affairs of this world, has then two agents; _Force_ and _Cunning_. She has also two checks; _Courage_ and _Knowledge_.

Force applied to spoliation, furnishes the great material for the annals of men. To retrace its history would be to present almost the entire history of every nation: a.s.syrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Tartars, without counting the more recent expeditions of the English in India, the French in Africa, the Russians in Asia, etc., etc.