----------------------------------------
-------------------------               
,transcriber's ,note3                   
,all ,greek words have been             
transliterated into ,english1 and are   
contained within   brackets4            
----------------------------------------
-------------------------               
,,the ,,cult ,,of ,,incompetence        
,,first ,,edition       ,november1      
#aiaa4           ,,second ,,edition     
,july1 #aiab4                  ,,the    
,,cult ,,of ,,incompetence              
,by ,,emile ,,faguet                ,of 
the ,french ,academy                    
,,translated ,,from ,,the ,,french ,,by 
,,beatrice ,,barstow                    
,,with ,,an ,,introduction ,,by         
,,thomas ,,mackay                       
,,new ,,york3               ,e4 ,p4     
,,dutton  ,,company                     
#aiab                                   
,,contents4                             
,,page    ,,introduction                
#a    ,,chapter      ,i4 ,,the          

,,principles ,,of ,,forms ,,of          
,,government         #ab     ,,ii4      
,,confusion ,,of ,,functions            
#cg    ,,iii4 ,,the ,,refuges ,,of      
,,efficiency                     #ei    
,,iv4 ,,the ,,competent ,,legislator    
#ff      ,v4 ,,laws ,,under ,,democracy 
#hb     ,,vi4 ,,the ,,incompetence ,,of 
,,government                #ib         
,,vii4 ,,judicial ,,incompetence        
#if   ,,viii4 ,,examples ,,of           
,,incompetence                     #abc 
,,ix4 ,,manners                         
#aef      ,x4 ,,professional ,,customs  
#afb     ,,xi4 ,,attempted ,,remedies   
#agb    ,,xii4 ,,the ,,dream            
#baf         ,,index                    
#bcg     ,,the ,,cult ,,of              
,,incompetence4  ,,introduction4        
,though it may not have been possible in
 the following pages to reproduce the   
elegant and incisive style of a master  
of ,french prose1 not even the          
inadequacies of a translation can       
obscure the force of his argument4 ,the 

only introduction1 therefore1 that seems
 possible must take the form of a       
request to the reader to study ,m4      
,faguet's criticism of modern democracy 
with the daily paper in his hand4 ,he   
will then see1 taking chapter by        
chapter1 how in some aspects the        
phenomena of ,english democracy are     
identical with those described in the   
text1 and how in others our ,english    
worship of incompetence1 moral and      
technical1 differs considerably from    
that which prevails in ,france4 ,it     
might have been possible1 as a part of  
the scheme of this volume1 to note on   
each page1 by way of illustration1      
instances from contemporary ,english    
practice1 but an adequate execution of  
this plan would have overloaded the     
text1 or even required an additional    
volume4 ,such a volume1 impartially     
worked out with instances drawn from the
 programme of all political parties1    
would be an interesting commentary on   
current political controversy1 and it is

 to be hoped that ,m4 ,faguet's         
suggestive pages will inspire some      
competent hand to undertake the task4   
,if ,m4 ,faguet had chosen to refer to  
,england1 he might1 perhaps1 have cited 
the constitution of this country1 as it 
existed some seventy years ago1 as an   
example of a demophil aristocracy1      
raised to power by an                   
aristocracy-respecting democracy4 ,it is
 not perhaps wise in political          
controversy to compromise our liberty of
 action in respect of the problems of   
the present time1 by too deferential a  
reference to a golden age which         
probably1 like ,lycurgus in the text1 p4
 #gc1 never existed at all1 but it has  
been often stated1 and undoubtedly with 
a certain amount of truth1 that the     
years between #ahcb and #ahff were the  
only period in ,english history during  
which philosophical principles were     
allowed an important1 we cannot say a   
paramount1 authority over ,english      
legislation4 ,the characteristic        

features of the period were a           
determination to abolish the privileges 
of the few1 which1 however1 involved no 
desire to embark on the impossible and  
inequitable task of creating privileges 
for the many2 a deliberate attempt to   
extirpate the servile dependence of the 
old poor law1 and a definite abandonment
 of the plan of distributing economic   
advantages by eleemosynary state action4
 ,this policy was based on the          
conviction that personal liberty and    
freedom of private enterprise were the  
adequate1 constructive influences of a  
progressive civilisation4 ,too much     
importance has perhaps been attached to 
the relatively unimportant question of  
the freedom of international trade1 for 
this was only part of a general policy  
of emancipation which had a much more   
far-reaching scope4 ,rightly understood 
the political philosophy of that time1  
put forward by the competent statesmen  
who were then trusted by the democracy1 
proclaimed the principle of liberty and 

freedom of exchange as the true solvents
 of the economic problems of the day4   
,this policy remained in force during   
the ministry of ,sir ,r4 ,peel and      
lasted right down to the time of the    
great budgets of ,mr4 ,gladstone4  ,if  
we might venture1 therefore1 to add     
another to the definitions of           
,montesquieu1 we might say that the     
principle animating a liberal           
constitutional government was liberty1  
and that this involved a definite plan  
for enlarging the sphere of liberty as  
the organising principle of civil       
society4 ,to what then are we to impute 
the decadence from this type into which 
parliamentary government seems now to   
have fallen8 ,can we attribute this to  
neglect or to exaggeration of its       
animating principle1 as suggested in the
 formula of ,montesquieu8 ,it is a      
question which the reader may find      
leisure to investigate2 we confine      
ourselves to marking what seem to be    
some of the stages of decay4  ,when the 

forces of destructive radicalism had    
done their legitimate work1 it seemed a 
time for rest and patience1 for         
administration rather than for fresh    
legislation and for a pause during which
 the principles of liberty and free     
exchange might have been left to        
organise the equitable distribution of  
the inevitably increasing wealth of the 
country4 ,the patience and the          
conviction which were needed to allow of
 such a development1 rightly or wrongly1
 were not forthcoming1 and politicians  
and parties have not been wanting to    
give effect to remedies hastily         
suggested to and adopted by the people4 
,political leaders soon came to realise 
that recent enfranchisements had added a
 new electorate for whom philosophical  
principles had no charm4 ,at a later    
date also1 ,mr4 ,gladstone1 yielding to 
a powerful and not over-scrupulous      
political agitation1 suddenly determined
 to attempt a great constitutional      
change in the relations between the     

,united ,kingdom and ,ireland4 ,whether 
the transference of the misgovernment of
 ,ireland from ,london to ,dublin would 
have had results as disastrous or as    
beneficial as disputants have asserted1 
may be matter for doubt1 but the manner 
in which the proposal was made certainly
 had one unfortunate consequence4 ,mr4  
,gladstone's action struck a blow at the
 independence and self-respect1 or as   
,m4 ,faguet terms it1 the moral         
competence of our parliamentary         
representation from which it has never  
recovered4 ,men were called on to       
abandon1 in the course of a few hours1  
opinions which they had professed for a 
lifetime and this not as the result of  
conviction but on the pressure of party 
discipline4 ,political feeling ran high4
 ,the ,caucus was called into more      
active operation4 ,political parties    
began to invent programmes to capture   
the groundlings4 ,the conservative      
party1 relinquishing its useful function
 of critic1 revived the old policy of   

eleemosynary doles1 and1 in an unlucky  
moment for its future1 has encumbered   
itself with an advocacy of the policy of
 protection4 ,for strangely enough the  
democracy1 the bestower of power1 though
 developing symptoms of fiscal tyranny  
and a hatred of liberty in other        
directions clings tenaciously to freedom
 of international trade--for the present
 at least--and it would seem that the   
electioneering caucus has1 in this      
instance1 failed to understand its own  
business4 ,the doles of the new         
,state-charity were to be given to meet 
contributions from the beneficiaries1   
but as the class which for one reason or
 another is ever in a destitute         
condition1 could not or would not       
contribute1 the only way in which the   
benevolent purpose of the agitation     
could be carried out was by bestowing   
the dole gratuitously4 ,the flood gates1
 therefore1 had to be opened wider1 and 
we have been and still are exposed to a 
rush of philanthropic legislation which 

is gradually transferring all the       
responsibilities of life from the       
individual to the state4 ,free trade for
 the moment remains1 and it is supposed 
to be strongly entrenched in the        
convictions of the liberal party4 ,its  
position1 however1 is obviously very    
precarious in view of the demands made  
by the militant trade unions4 ,these1 in
 their various spheres1 claim a monopoly
 of employment for their members1 to the
 exclusion of those who do not belong to
 their associations4 ,logic has         
something1 perhaps not much1 to do with 
political action1 and it is almost      
inconceivable that a party can go on for
 long holding these two contradictory   
opinions4 ,which of them will be        
abandoned1 the future only can tell4    
,the result of all this is a growing    
disinclination on the part of the people
 to limit their responsibilities to     
their means of discharging them1 the    
creation of a proletariate which in     
search of maintenance drifts along the  

line of least resistance1 dependence on 
the government dole4 ,in the end too it 
must bring about the impoverishment of  
the state1 which is ever being called on
 to undertake new burdens2 for the      
individual1 thus released from          
obligation to discharge1 is still left  
free to create responsibilities1 for    
which it is now the business of the     
,state to make provision4 ,under such a 
system the ability to pay as well as the
 number of the solvent citizens must    
continuously decline4  ,the proper reply
 to this legislation which we describe  
as predatory in the sense that we       
describe the benevolent habits of ,robin
 ,hood as predatory1 cannot be made by  
the official opposition which was itself
 the first to step on the down grade1   
and which only waits the chances of     
party warfare to take its turn in       
providing panem et circenses at the     
charge of the public exchequer4 ,in this
 way1 progress is brought to a          
standstill by the chronic unwillingness 

of the rate- and tax-payers to find the 
money4 ,a truer policy1 based on the    
voluntary action of citizens and capable
 of indefinite and continuous expansion1
 finds no support among politicians1 for
 all political parties seem to be held  
in the grip of the moral and technical  
incompetence which ,m4 ,faguet has so   
wittily described4 ,the only reply to a 
government bent on such courses is that 
which above has been imputed--perhaps   
without sufficient justification--to the
 governments of the period #ahcb-ahff2  
and that reply democracy1 as at present 
advised1 will allow no political party  
to make4  ,there does not appear1       
therefore1 to be much difference between
 the situation here and in ,france1 and 
it is very interesting to notice how in 
various details there is a very close   
parallelism between events in this      
country and those which ,m4 ,faguet has 
described4 ,the position of our ,lord   
,chancellor1 who has been bitterly      
attacked by his own party1 in respect of

 his appointment of magistrates1 is very
 similar to that of ,m4 ,barthou1 quoted
 on p4 #aah4 ,our judicial system has   
hitherto been considered free from      
political partisanship1 but very        
recently and for the first time a       
minister in his place in parliament1 has
 rightly or wrongly seen fit to call in 
question the impartiality of our        
judicial bench1 and the suspicion1 if1  
as appears to be the case1 it is widely 
entertained by persons heated in        
political strife1 will probably lead to 
appointments calculated to ensure       
reprisals4 ,astute politicians do not   
commit themselves to an attack on a     
venerated institution1 till they think  
they know that that institution is      
becoming unpopular with the followers   
who direct their policy4 ,criminal      
verdicts also1 especially on the eve of 
an election1 are now made liable to     
revision by ministers scouring the gaols
 of the country in search of picturesque
 malefactors whom1 with an accompaniment

 of much philanthropic speech1 they     
proceed to set at liberty4 ,even the    
first principles of equity1 as          
ordinarily understood1 seem to have lost
 their authority1 when weighed in the   
balance against the vote of the         
majority4 ,very recently the members of 
an honourable and useful profession     
represented to a minister that his      
extension of a scheme of more or less   
gratuitous relief to a class which      
hitherto had been able and willing to   
pay its way1 was likely to deprive them 
of their livelihood4 ,his reply1 inter  
alia1 contained the argument that the   
class in question was very numerous and 
had many votes1 and that he doubted     
whether any one would venture to propose
 its exclusion except perhaps a member  
for a university2 as a matter of fact   
some such proposal had been made by one 
of the university members whose         
constituents were affected by the       
proposal4 ,the minister further declared
 that he did not think that such an     

amendment could obtain a seconder4 ,the 
argument seems to impute to our national
 representatives a cynical disregard of 
equity1 and a blind worship of numbers1 
which if true1 is an instance of moral  
incompetence quite as remarkable as     
anything contained in ,m4 ,faguet's     
narrative4  ,if readers of this volume  
will take the trouble to annotate their 
copies with a record of the relevant    
incidents which meet them every day of  
their lives1 they cannot fail to        
acknowledge how terribly inevitable is  
the rise of incompetence to political   
power4 ,the tragedy is all the more     
dreadful1 when we recognise1 as we all  
must1 the high character and ability of 
the statesmen and politicians who lie   
under the thrall of this compelling     
necessity4  ,this systematic corruption 
of the best threatens to assume the     
proportions of a national disaster4 ,it 
is the system1 not the actors in it1    
which ,m4 ,faguet analyses and invites  
us to deplore4                          

,t4 ,,mackay4     ,,chapter ,i4  ,,the  
,,principles ,,of ,,forms ,,of          
,,government4   ,the question has often 
been asked1 what is the animating       
principle of different forms of         
government1 for each1 it is assumed1 has
 its own principle4 ,in other words1    
what is the general idea which inspires 
each political system8  ,montesquieu1   
for instance1 proved that the principle 
of monarchy is honour1 the principle of 
despotism fear1 the principle of a      
republic virtue or patriotism1 and he   
added with much justice that governments
 decline and fall as often by carrying  
their principle to excess1 as by        
neglecting it altogether4  ,and this1   
though a paradox1 is true4 ,at first    
sight it may not be obvious how a       
despotism can fall by inspiring too much
 fear1 or a constitutional monarchy by  
developing too highly the sentiment of  
honour1 or a republic by having too much
 virtue4 ,it is nevertheless true4  ,to 
make too common a use of fear is to     

destroy its efficacy4 ,as ,edgar ,quinet
 happily puts it3 ,if we want to make   
use of fear we must be certain that we  
can use it always4 ,we cannot have too  
much honour1 but when we can appeal to  
this sentiment only and when            
distinctions1 decorations1 orders1      
ribbons--in a word honours--are         
multiplied1 inasmuch as we cannot       
increase such things indefinitely1 those
 who have none become as discontented as
 those who1 having some1 want more4     
,finally we cannot1 of course1 have too 
much virtue1 and naturally here         
governments will fall not by            
exaggerating but by abandoning their    
guiding principle4 ,yet is it not       
sometimes true that by demanding from   
citizens too great a devotion to their  
country1 we end by exhausting human     
powers of endurance and sacrifice8 ,this
 is what happened in the case of        
,napoleon1 who1 perhaps unwittingly1    
required too much from ,france1 for the 
building up of a ',greater ,france4'    

,but that1 some one will object1 was not
 a republic6  ,from the point of view of
 the sacrifices required from the       
citizen1 it was a republic1 similar to  
the ,roman ,republic and to the ,french 
,republic of #agib4 ,all the talk was   
'for the glory of our country1'         
'heroism1 heroism1 nothing but heroism'6
 ,if too much is required of it1 civic  
virtue can be exhausted4  ,it is1 then1 
very true that governments perish just  
as much from an excess as from a neglect
 of their appropriate principle4        
,montesquieu without doubt borrowed his 
general idea from ,aristotle1 who       
remarks not without humour1 ,those1 who 
think that they have discovered the     
basis of good government1 are apt to    
push the consequences of their new found
 principle too far4 ,they do not        
remember that disproportion in such     
matters is fatal4 ,they forget that a   
nose which varies slightly from the     
ideal line of beauty appropriate for    
noses1 tending slightly towards becoming

 a hook or a snub1 may still be of fair 
shape and not disagreeable to the eye1  
but if the excess be very great1 all    
symmetry is lost1 and the nose at last  
ceases to be a nose at all4 ,this law of
 proportion holds good with regard to   
every form of government4               
99       99       99       99       99  
,starting from these general ideas1 ,i  
have often wondered what principle      
democrats have adopted for the form of  
government which they favour1 and it has
 not required a great effort on my part 
to arrive at the conclusion that the    
principle in question is the worship and
 cultivation1 or1 briefly 'the cult' of 
incompetence or inefficiency4  ,let us  
examine any well-managed and successful 
business firm or factory4 ,every        
employee does the work he knows and does
 best1 the skilled workman1 the         
accountant1 the manager and the         
secretary1 each in his place4 ,no one   
would dream of making the accountant    
change places with a commercial         

traveller or a mechanic4  ,look too at  
the animal world4 ,the higher we go in  
the scale of organic existence1 the     
greater the division of labour1 the more
 marked the specialisation of           
physiological function4 ,one organ      
thinks1 another acts1 one digests1      
another breathes4 ,now is there such a  
thing as an animal with only one organ1 
or rather is there any animal1          
consisting of only one organ1 which     
breathes and thinks and digests all at  
the same time8 ,yes1 there is4 ,it is   
called the amoeba1 and the amoeba is the
 very lowest thing in the animal world1 
very inferior even to a vegetable4  ,in 
the same way1 without doubt1 in a well  
constituted society1 each organ has its 
definite function1 that is to say1      
administration is carried on by those   
who have learnt how to administer1      
legislation and the amendment of laws by
 those who have learnt how to legislate1
 justice by those who have studied      
jurisprudence1 and the functions of a   

country postman are not given to a      
paralytic4 ,society should model itself 
on nature1 whose plan is specialisation4
 ,for1 as ,aristotle says1 she is not   
niggardly1 like the ,delphian smiths    
whose knives have to serve for many     
purposes1 she makes each thing for a    
single purpose1 and the best instrument 
is that which serves one and not many   
uses4 ,elsewhere he says1 ,at ,carthage 
it is thought an honour to hold many    
offices1 but a man only does one thing  
well4 ,the legislator should see to     
this1 and prevent the same man from     
being set to make shoes and play the    
flute4 ,a well-constituted society1 we  
may sum up1 is one where every function 
is not confided to every one1 where the 
crowd itself1 the whole body social1 is 
not told3 ,it is your business to       
govern1 to administer1 to make the laws1
 c4 ,a society1 where things are so     
arranged1 is an amoebic society4  ,that 
society1 therefore1 stands highest in   
the scale1 where the division of labour 

is greatest1 where specialisation is    
most definite1 and where the            
distribution of functions according to  
efficiency is most thoroughly carried   
out4                  99       99       
99       99       99  ,now democracies1 
far from sharing this view1 are inclined
 to take the opposite view4 ,at ,athens 
there was a great tribunal composed of  
men learned in1 and competent to        
interpret1 the law4 ,the people could   
not tolerate such an institution1 so    
laboured to destroy it and to usurp its 
functions4 ,the crowd reasoned thus4 ,we
 can interpret and carry out laws1      
because we make them4 ,the conclusion   
was right1 but the minor premise was    
disputable4 ,the retort can be made3    
,true1 you can interpret and carry out  
laws because you make them1 but perhaps 
you have no business to be making laws4 
,be that as it may1 the ,athenian people
 not only interpreted and applied its   
own laws1 but it insisted on being paid 
for so doing4 ,the result was that the  

poorest citizens sat judging all day    
long1 as all others were unwilling to   
sacrifice their whole time for a payment
 of six drachmas4 ,this plebeian        
tribunal continued for many years4 ,its 
most celebrated feat was the judgment   
which condemned ,socrates to death4     
,this was perhaps matter for regret1 but
 the great principle1 the sovereignty of
 incompetence1 was vindicated4  ,modern 
democracies seem to have adopted the    
same principle1 in form they are        
essentially amoebic4 ,a democracy1      
well-known to us all1 has been evolved  
in the following manner4  ,it began with
 this idea2 king and people1 democratic 
royalty1 royal democracy4 ,the people   
makes1 the king carries out1 the law2   
the people legislates1 the king governs1
 retaining1 however1 a certain control  
over the law1 for he can suspend the    
carrying out of a new law when he       
considers that it tends to obstruct the 
function of government4 ,here then was a
 sort of specialisation of functions4   

,the same person1 or collective body of 
persons1 did not both legislate and     
govern4  ,this did not last long4 ,the  
king was suppressed4 ,democracy         
remained1 but a certain amount of       
respect for efficiency remained too4    
,the people1 the masses1 did not1 every 
single man of them1 claim the right to  
govern and to legislate directly4  ,it  
did not even claim the right to nominate
 the legislature directly4 ,it adopted  
indirect election1 a deux degres1 that  
is1 it nominated electors who in turn   
nominated the legislature4 ,it thus left
 two aristocracies above itself1 the    
first electors and the elected          
legislature4 ,this was still far removed
 from democracy on the ,athenian model  
which did everything itself4  ,this does
 not mean that much attention was paid  
to efficiency4 ,the electors were not   
chosen because they were particularly   
fitted to elect a legislature1 nor was  
the legislature itself elected with any 
reference to its legislative capacity4  

,still there was a certain pretence of a
 desire for efficiency1 a double        
pseudo-efficiency4 ,the crowd1 or rather
 the constitution1 assumed that         
legislators elected by the delegates of 
the crowd were more competent to make   
laws than the crowd itself4  ,this      
somewhat curious form of efficiency ,i  
have called competence par collation1   
efficiency or competence conferred by   
this form of selection4 ,there is       
absolutely nothing to show that         
so-and-so has the slightest legislative 
or juridical faculty1 so ,i confer on   
him a certificate of efficiency by the  
confidence ,i repose in him when        
nominating him for the office1 or rather
 ,i show my confidence in the electors  
and they confer a certificate of        
efficiency on those whom they nominate  
for the legislature4  ,this1 of course1 
is devoid of all common sense1 but      
appearances1 and even something more1   
are in its favour4  ,it is not common   
sense for it involves something being   

made out of nothing1 inefficiency       
producing efficiency and zero extracting
 'one' out of itself4 ,this form of     
selection1 though it does not appeal to 
me under any circumstances1 is          
legitimate enough when it is exercised  
by a competent body4 ,a university can  
confer a degree upon a distinguished man
 because it can judge whether his       
degreeless condition is due to accident 
or not4 ,it would1 however1 be highly   
ridiculous and paradoxical if the       
general public were to confer           
mathematical degrees4 ,a degree of      
efficiency conferred by an inefficient  
body is contrary to common sense4       
,there is1 however1 some plausibility   
and indeed a little more than           
plausibility in favour of this plan4    
,degrees in literature and in dramatic  
art are conferred1 given by 'collation1'
 by incompetent people1 that is by the  
public4 ,we can say to the public3 ,you 
know nothing of literary and dramatic   
art4 ,it will retort3 ,true1 ,i know    

nothing1 but certain things move me and 
,i confer the degree on those who evoke 
my emotions4 ,in this it is not         
altogether wrong4 ,in the same way the  
degree of doctor of political science is
 conferred by the people on those who   
stir its emotions and who express most  
forcibly its own passions4 ,these       
doctors of political science are the    
empassioned representatives of its own  
passions4  --,in other words1 the worst 
legislators6--  ,yes1 very nearly so1   
but not quite4 ,it is very useful that  
we should have an exponent of popular   
passion at the crest of the social wave1
 to tell us not indeed what the crowd is
 thinking1 for the crowd never thinks1  
but what the crowd is feeling1 in order 
that we may not cross it too violently  
or obey it too obsequiously4 ,an        
engineer would call it the science of   
the strength of materials4  ,a medium   
assures me that he had a conversation   
with ,louis ,,xiv1 who said to him3     
,universal suffrage is an excellent     

thing in a monarchy4 ,it is a source of 
information4 ,when it recommends a      
certain course of action it shows us    
that this is a thing which we must not  
do4 ,if ,i could have consulted it over 
the ,revocation of the ,edict of        
,nantes1 it would have given me a clear 
mandate for that ,revocation and ,i     
should have known what to do1 and that  
,edict would not have been revoked4 ,i  
acted as ,i did1 because ,i was advised 
by ministers whom ,i considered         
experienced statesmen4 ,had ,i been     
aware of the state of public opinion ,i 
should have known that ,france was tired
 of wars and new palaces and            
extravagance4 ,but this was not an      
expression of passion and prejudice1 but
 a cry of suffering4 ,as far as passion 
and prejudice are concerned we must go  
right in the teeth of public opinion1   
and universal suffrage will tell you    
what that is4 ,on the other hand we must
 pay heed1 serious heed to every cry of 
pain1 and here too universal suffrage   

will come to our aid4 ,universal        
suffrage is necessary to a monarchy as a
 source of information4  ,this1 ,i am   
told1 is ,louis ,,xiv's present opinion 
on the subject4  ,as far as legislation 
therefore is concerned1 the attempt to  
secure competence by 'collation' is an  
absurdity4 ,yet it is an inverted sort  
of competence useful for indicating the 
state of a nation's temper4 ,from this  
it follows that this system is as       
mischievous in a republic as it would be
 wholesome in a monarchy4 ,it is not    
therefore altogether bad4  ,the         
democracy which we have in view1 after  
having been governed by the             
representatives of its representatives  
for ten years1 submitted for the next   
fifteen years to the rule of one        
representative and took no particular   
advantage therefrom4  ,then for thirty  
years it adopted a scheme which aimed at
 a certain measure of efficiency4 ,it   
assumed that the electors of the        
legislature ought not to be nominated1  

but marked out by their social position1
 that is their fortune4 ,those who      
possessed so many drachmas were to be   
electors4  ,what sort of a basis for    
efficiency is this8 ,it is a basis but  
certainly a somewhat narrow one4  ,it is
 a basis1 first1 because a man who owns 
a certain fortune has a greater interest
 than others in a sound management of   
public business1 and self-interest opens
 and quickens the eye2 and again a man  
who has money and does not lose it      
cannot be altogether a fool4  ,on the   
other hand it is a narrow basis1 because
 the possession of money is of itself no
 guarantee of political ability1 and the
 system leads to the very questionable  
proposition that every rich man is a    
competent social reformer4 ,it is1      
however1 a sort of competence1 but a    
competence very precariously established
 and on a very narrow basis4  ,this     
system disappeared and our democracy1   
after a short interregnum1 repeated its 
previous experiment and submitted for   

eighteen years to the rule of one       
delegate with no great cause to         
congratulate itself on the result4  ,it 
then adopted democracy in a form almost 
pure and simple4 ,i say almost1 for the 
democratic system pure and simple       
involves the direct government of the   
people without any intervening          
representatives1 by means of a          
continuous plebiscite4 ,our democracy   
then set up and still maintains a       
democratic system almost pure and       
simple1 that is to say1 it established  
government of the nation by delegates   
whom it itself elected and by these     
delegates strictly and exclusively4     
,this time we have reached an apotheosis
 of incompetence that is well nigh      
absolute4  ,this1 our present system1   
purports to be the rule of efficiency   
chosen by the arbitrary form of         
selection which has been described4     
,just as the bishop in the story1       
addressing a haunch of venison1         
exclaimed3 ,i baptise thee carp1 so the 

people says to its representatives3 ,i  
baptise you masters of law1 ,i baptise  
you statesmen1 ,i baptise you social    
reformers4 ,we shall see later on that  
this baptism goes very much further than
 this4  ,if the people were capable of  
judging of the legal and psychological  
knowledge possessed by those who present
 themselves for election1 this form of  
selection need not be prohibitive of    
efficiency and might even be            
satisfactory2 but in the first place1   
the electors are not capable of judging1
 and secondly1 even if they were1       
nothing would be gained4  ,nothing would
 be gained1 because the people never    
places itself at this point of view4    
,emphatically never6 ,it looks at the   
qualifications of the candidate not from
 a scientific but from a moral point of 
view4  --,well that surely is something1
 and1 in a way1 a guarantee of          
efficiency4 ,the legislators are not    
capable of making laws1 it is true2 but 
at least they are honest men4 ,this     

guarantee of moral efficiency1 some     
critic will say1 gives me much          
satisfaction4  ,please be careful1 ,i   
reply1 we should never think of giving  
the management of a railway station to  
the most honest man1 but to an honest   
man who1 besides1 understood thoroughly 
railway administration4 ,so we must put 
into our laws not only honest           
intentions1 but just principles of law1 
politics1 and society4  ,secondly1 if   
the candidates are considered from the  
point of view of their moral worth it is
 in a peculiar fashion4 ,high morality  
is imputed to those who share the       
dominant passions of the people and who 
express themselves thereon more         
violently than others4 ,ah6 these are   
our honest men1 it cries1 and ,i do not 
say that the men of its choice are      
dishonest1 ,i only say that by this     
criterion they are not infallibly marked
 out even as honest4  --,still1 some one
 replies1 they are probably             
disinterested1 for they follow popular  

prejudices1 and not their own           
particular1 individual wishes4  ,yes1   
that is just what the masses believe1   
while they forget that there is nothing 
easier than to simulate popular passion 
in order to win popular confidence and  
become a political personage4 ,if       
disinterestedness is really so essential
 to the people1 only those should be    
elected who oppose the popular will and 
who show thereby that they do not want  
to be elected4 ,or better still only    
those who do not stand for election     
should be elected1 since not to stand is
 the undeniable sign of                 
disinterestedness4 ,but this is never   
done4 ,that which should always be done 
is never done4  --,but1 some one will   
say1 your public bodies which recruit   
their numbers by co-optation1 ,academies
 and learned societies1 do not elect    
their members in this way4--  ,quite so1
 and they are right4 ,such bodies do not
 want their members to be disinterested 
but scientific4 ,they have no reason to 

prefer an unwilling member to one who is
 eager to be elected4 ,their point of   
view is entirely different4 ,the people1
 which pretends to set store by high    
moral character1 should exclude from    
power those who are ambitious of power1 
or at least those who covet it with a   
keenness that suggests other than       
disinterested motives4  ,these          
considerations show us what the crowd   
understands by the moral worth of a man4
 ,the moral worth of a man consists1 as 
far as the crowd is concerned1 in his   
entertaining or pretending to entertain 
the same sentiments as itself1 and it is
 just for this reason that the          
representatives of the multitude are    
excellent as documents for information1 
but detestable1 or at least1 useless1   
and therefore detestable1 as            
legislators4  ,montesquieu1 who is      
seldom wrong1 errs in my opinion when he
 says1 ,the people is well-fitted to    
choose its own magistrates4 ,he1 it is  
true1 did not live under a democracy4   

,for consider1 how could the people be  
fitted to choose its own magistrates and
 legislators1 when ,montesquieu himself1
 this time with ample justification1    
lays down as one of his principles that 
morals should correct climate1 and that 
law should correct morals1 and the      
people1 as we know1 only thinks of      
choosing as its delegates men who share1
 in every particular1 its own manner of 
thinking8 ,climate can be partially     
resisted by the people2 but if the law  
should correct morals1 legislators      
should be chosen who have taken up an   
attitude of reaction against current    
morality4 ,it would be very curious if  
such a choice were ever made1 and not   
only is it never made but the contrary  
invariably happens4  ,to sum it all up1 
it is intellectual incompetence1 nay    
moral incompetence which is sought      
instinctively in the people's choice4   
99       99       99       99       99  
,if possible1 it is more than this4 ,the
 people favours incompetence1 not only  

because it is no judge of intellectual  
competence and because it looks on moral
 competence from a wrong point of view1 
but because it desires before           
everything1 as indeed is very natural1  
that its representatives should resemble
 itself4 ,this it does for two reasons4 
,first1 as a matter of sentiment1 the   
people desires1 as we have seen1 that   
its representatives should share its    
feelings and prejudices4 ,these         
representatives can share its prejudices
 and yet not absolutely resemble it in  
morals1 habits1 manners and appearance2 
but naturally the people never feels so 
certain that a man shares its prejudices
 and is not merely pretending to do so1 
as when the man resembles it feature by 
feature4 ,it is a sign and a guarantee4 
,the people is instinctively impelled   
therefore to elect men of the same      
habits1 manners and even education as   
itself1 or shall we say of an education 
slightly superior1 the education of a   
man who can talk1 but only superior in a

 very slight degree4  ,in addition to   
this sentimental reason1 there is       
another1 which is extremely important1  
for it goes to the very root of the     
democratic idea4 ,what is the people's  
one desire1 when once it has been stung 
by the democratic tarantula8 ,it is that
 all men should be equal1 and in        
consequence that all inequalities       
natural as well as artificial should    
disappear4 ,it will not have artificial 
inequalities1 nobility of birth1 royal  
favours1 inherited wealth1 and so it is 
ready to abolish nobility1 royalty1 and 
inheritance4 ,nor does it like natural  
inequalities1 that is to say a man more 
intelligent1 more active1 more          
courageous1 more skilful than his       
neighbours4 ,it cannot destroy these    
inequalities1 for they are natural1 but 
it can neutralise them1 strike them with
 impotence by excluding them from the   
employments under its control4          
,democracy is thus led quite naturally1 
irresistibly one may say1 to exclude the

 competent precisely because they are   
competent1 or if the phrase pleases     
better and as the popular advocate would
 put it1 not because they are competent 
but because they are unequal1 or1 as he 
would probably go on to say1 if he      
wished to excuse such action1 not       
because they are unequal1 but because   
being unequal they are suspected of     
being opponents of equality4 ,so it all 
comes to the same thing4 ,this it is    
that made ,aristotle say that where     
merit is despised1 there is democracy4  
,he does not say so in so many words1   
but he wrote3 ,where merit is not       
esteemed before everything else1 it is  
not possible to have a firmly           
established aristocracy1 and that       
amounts to saying that where merit is   
not esteemed1 we enter at once on a     
democratic regime and never escape from 
it4  ,the chance1 then1 of efficiency   
coming to the front in this state of    
affairs is indeed deplorable4  ,first   
and last1 democracy--and it is natural  

enough--wishes to do everything itself1 
it is the enemy of all specialisation of
 functions1 particularly it wishes to   
govern1 without delegates or            
intermediaries4 ,its ideal is direct    
government as it existed at ,athens1 its
 ideal is democracy1 in the terminology 
of ,rousseau1 who applied the word to   
direct government and to direct         
government only4  ,forced by historical 
events and perhaps by necessity to      
govern by delegates1 how could democracy
 still contrive to govern directly or   
nearly so1 although continuing to govern
 through delegates8  ,its first         
alternative is1 perhaps1 to impose on   
its delegates an imperative mandate4    
,delegates under this condition become  
mere agents of the people4 ,they attend 
the legislative assembly to register the
 will of the people just as they receive
 it1 and the people in reality governs  
directly4 ,this is what is meant by the 
imperative mandate4  ,democracy has     
often considered it1 but never with     

persistence4 ,herein it shows good      
sense4 ,it has a shrewd suspicion that  
the imperative mandate is never more    
than a snare and a delusion4            
,representatives of the people meet and 
discuss1 the interests of party become  
defined4 ,henceforward they are the prey
 of the goddess ,opportunity1 the ,greek
 ,kairos4 ,then it happens one day that 
to vote according to their mandate would
 be very unfavourable to the interest of
 their party4 ,they are therefore       
obliged to be faithless to their party  
by reason of their fidelity to their    
mandate1 or disobedient to their mandate
 by reason of their obedience to their  
party2 and in any case to have betrayed 
their mandate with this very            
praiseworthy and excellent intention is 
a thing for which they can take credit  
or at least obtain excuse with the      
electors--and on such a matter it will  
be very difficult to refute them4  ,the 
imperative mandate is therefore a very  
clumsy instrument for work of a very    

delicate character4 ,the democracy1     
instinctively1 knows this very well1 and
 sets no great store by the imperative  
mandate4  ,what other alternative is    
there for it8 ,something very much      
finer1 the substance instead of the     
shadow4 ,it can elect men who resemble  
it closely1 who follow its sentiments   
closely1 who are in fact so nearly      
identical with itself that they may be  
trusted to do surely1 instinctively1    
almost mechanically that which it would 
itself do1 if it were itself an immense 
legislative assembly4 ,they would vote1 
without doubt1 according to             
circumstances1 but also as their        
electors would vote if they were        
governing directly4 ,in this way        
democracy preserves its legislative     
power4 ,it makes the law1 and this is   
the only way it can make it4            
,democracy1 therefore1 has the greatest 
inducement to elect representatives who 
are representative1 who1 in the first   
place1 resemble it as closely as        

possible1 who1 in the second place1 have
 no individuality of their own1 who     
finally1 having no fortune of their own1
 have no sort of independence4  ,we     
deplore that democracy surrenders itself
 to politicians1 but from its own point 
of view1 a point of view which it cannot
 avoid taking up1 it is absolutely      
right4 ,what is a politician8 ,he is a  
man who1 in respect of his personal     
opinions1 is a nullity1 in respect of   
education1 a mediocrity1 he shares the  
general sentiments and passions of the  
crowd1 his sole occupation is politics1 
and if that career were closed to him1  
he would die of starvation4  ,he is     
precisely the thing of which the        
democracy has need4  ,he will never be  
led away by his education to develop    
ideas of his own2 and having no ideas of
 his own1 he will not allow them to     
enter into conflict with his prejudices4
 ,his prejudices will be1 at first by a 
feeble sort of conviction1 afterwards by
 reason of his own interest1 identical  

with those of the crowd2 and lastly1 his
 poverty and the impossibility of his   
getting a living outside of politics    
make it certain that he will never break
 out of the narrow circle where his     
political employers have confined him2  
his imperative mandate is the material  
necessity which obliges him to obey2 his
 imperative mandate is his inability to 
quarrel with his bread and butter4      
,democracy obviously has need of        
politicians1 has need of nothing else   
but politicians1 and has need indeed    
that there shall be in politics nothing 
else but politicians4  ,its enemy1 or   
rather the man whom democracy dreads    
because he means to govern and does not 
intend to allow the mob to govern       
through him1 is the man who succeeds in 
getting elected for some constituency or
 other1 either by the influence of his  
wealth or by the prestige of his talent 
and notoriety4 ,such a man is not       
dependent on democracy4 ,if a           
legislative assembly were entirely or by

 a majority composed of rich men1 men of
 superior intelligence1 men who had an  
interest in attending to the trades or  
professions in which they had succeeded 
rather than in playing at politics1 they
 would vote according to their own      
ideas1 and then--what would happen8 ,why
 then democracy would be simply         
suppressed4 ,it would no longer         
legislate and govern2 there would be1 to
 speak exactly1 an aristocracy1 not very
 permanently established perhaps1 but   
still an aristocracy which would        
eliminate the influence of the people   
from public affairs4  ,clearly it is    
almost impossible for the democracy1 if 
it means to survive1 to encourage       
efficiency1 nay it is almost impossible 
for it to refrain from attempting to    
destroy efficiency4  ,thus1 we may sum  
up1 only those are elected as the       
representatives of the people1 who are  
its exact counterparts and constant     
dependents4     ,,chapter ,,ii4         
,,confusion ,,of ,,functions4   ,and    

what is the result of all this8 ,the    
result1 which is very logical1 very just
 from the democratic point of view1 and 
precisely that which the democracy      
desires and cannot do otherwise than    
desire1 is that the national            
representatives do exactly what the     
people would wish them to do1 and what  
the people would do itself if it        
undertook to govern directly itself4    
,the representative government wishes to
 do everything itself1 just as the      
people would like to do1 if it were     
itself exercising the functions of      
government directly1 just as it did in  
olden times on the ,pnyx at ,athens4    
,montesquieu realised this fully1 though
 naturally he had no experience of how  
the theory worked under a representative
 and parliamentary system4 ,the         
principle of it all is at bottom the    
same1 and only the change of a single   
phrase is needed to make the following  
quotation strictly applicable4 ,the     
principle of democracy1 he says1 is     

perverted not only when it loses the    
spirit of equality1 but still more when 
it carries the spirit of equality to an 
extreme1 and when every one wishes to be
 the equal of those whom he chooses to  
govern him4 ,for then the people1 not   
being able to tolerate the authority    
which it has created1 wishes to do      
everything itself1 to deliberate for the
 ,senate1 to act for the magistrates1   
and to usurp the functions of the       
judges4 ,the people wishes to exclude   
the magistrates from their functions1   
and the magistrates naturally are no    
longer respected4 ,the deliberations of 
the ,senate are allowed to have no      
weight1 and senators naturally fall into
 contempt4  ,let us translate the       
foregoing passage into the language of  
to-day4 ,under democratic parliamentary 
government the representatives of the   
people are determined to do everything  
themselves4 ,they must be equal to those
 whom they choose for their rulers4     
,they cannot tolerate the authority     

which they have entrusted to the        
,government4 ,they must themselves      
govern in the place of the ,government1 
administer in the place of the executive
 staff1 substitute their own authority  
for that of all the bench of judges1    
perform the duties of magistrates1 and1 
in a word1 throw off all regard and     
respect for persons and things4  ,this  
is the true inwardness of the popular   
spirit1 the will of the people which    
wishes to do everything itself1 or what 
is the same thing1 through its          
representatives1 its faithful and       
servile creatures4  ,from this point    
onwards efficiency is hunted and        
exterminated in every direction2 just as
 it was excluded in the election of     
representatives1 so the representatives 
laboriously and continuously exclude it 
from every sort of office and employment
 under the public service4  ,the        
,government1 to begin our analysis of   
functional confusion at the top1 ought  
to be watched and advised by the        

national representatives1 but it ought  
to be independent of the national       
representatives1 at least it ought not  
to be inextricably mixed up with them1  
in other words the national             
representatives ought not to govern4    
,under democracy this is precisely what 
they want to do4 ,they elect the        
,government1 a privilege which need not 
be denied them2 but1 not being able to  
tolerate the authority which they have  
created1 as soon as they have set it up1
 they put pressure on it and insist on  
governing continuously in its place4    
,the assembly of national               
representatives is not a body which     
makes laws1 but a body which1 by a never
 ending string of questions and         
interruptions1 dictates from day to day 
to the ,government what it ought to do1 
that is to say1 it is a body which      
governs4  ,the country is governed1     
literally1 by the ,chamber of ,deputies4
 ,this is absolutely necessary if1 as   
the true spirit of the system requires1 

the people is to be governed by no one  
but itself1 if there is to be no will at
 work other than the will of the people1
 emanating from itself and bringing back
 a sort of harvest of executive acts4   
,again1 ,i repeat1 this is absolutely   
necessary1 in order that there shall be 
nothing1 not even originating with the  
people1 which1 for a single moment and  
within the most narrowly defined limits1
 shall exercise the functions of        
sovereignty over the sovereign people4  
,this is all very well1 but government  
is an art and we assume that there is a 
science of government1 and here we have 
the people governed by persons who have 
neither science nor art1 and who are    
chosen precisely because they have not  
these qualifications and on the         
guarantee that they have none of them6  
,again1 in a democracy of this kind1 if 
there exist1 as a result of tradition or
 of some necessity arising out of       
foreign relations1 an authority1        
independent for a certain term of years 

of the legislative assembly1 which has  
no accounts to render to it and which   
cannot be questioned or constitutionally
 overthrown1 that authority is so       
strange1 and1 if the phrase may pass1 so
 monstrous an anomaly1 that it dares not
 exercise its power1 and dreads the     
scandal which it would raise by acting  
on its rights1 and seems as it were     
paralysed with terror at the very       
thought of its own existence4  ,and its 
attitude is right2 for if it exercised  
its powers1 or even lent itself to any  
appearance of so doing1 there at once   
would be an act of will which was not an
 act of the popular will1 a theory      
altogether contrary to the spirit of    
this system4 ,for in this system the    
chief of the state can only be the      
nominal chief of the state4 ,a will of  
his own would be an abuse of power1 an  
idea of his own would be an             
encroachment1 and a word of his own     
would be an act of high treason4  ,it   
follows that1 if the constitution has   

formally conferred these powers1 the    
constitution on these points is a dead  
letter1 because it contravenes an       
unwritten constitution of higher        
authority1 viz41 the inner inspiration  
of the political institution4  ,one of  
these honorary chiefs of the state has  
said3 ,during all my term as president1 
,i was constitutionally silent4 ,this is
 not correct1 for the constitution gave 
him leave to speak and even to act4 ,at 
bottom it was true1 for the             
constitution1 in allowing him to act and
 speak1 was acting unconstitutionally4  
,in speaking he would have been         
constitutional1 in holding his tongue he
 was institutional4 ,he had been in fact
 institutionally silent4 ,he disobeyed  
the letter of the constitution1 but he  
had admirably extracted its meaning from
 it1 and understood and respected its   
spirit4  ,under democracy1 then1 the    
national representatives govern as      
directly and as really as possible1     
dictating a policy to the executive and 

neutralising the supreme chief of the   
executive to whom it is not able to     
dictate4  ,the national representatives 
are not content with governing1 they    
wish to administer4 ,now consider how it
 would be if the permanent officials of 
finance1 justice and police1 etc41      
depended solely on their parliamentary  
chiefs1 who are ministers only because  
they are the creatures of the popular   
assembly1 liable to instant and frequent
 dismissal2 surely then1 these          
officials1 more permanent than their    
chiefs1 would form an aristocracy1 and  
would administer the state independently
 of the popular will and according to   
their own ideas4  ,this1 of course1 must
 not be allowed to happen4 ,there must  
not be any will but the people's will1  
no other power1 however limited1 but its
 own4  ,this causes a dilemma which is  
sufficiently remarkable4 ,here we seem  
to have contrary results from the same  
cause4 ,since the popular assembly      
governs ministers1 and frequently       

dismisses them1 they are not able to    
govern their subordinates as did        
,colbert and ,louvois1 and these        
subordinates accordingly are very       
independent2 so it comes about that the 
greater the authority which the popular 
assembly wields over ministers1 the more
 it is likely to lose in its control    
over the subordinates of ministers1 and 
in destroying one rival power it creates
 another4  ,the dilemma1 however1 is    
avoided easily enough4 ,no public       
official is appointed without receiving 
its visa1 and it contrives even to elect
 the administrative officials4 ,in the  
first place1 the national               
representatives1 in their corporate     
capacity1 and in the central offices of 
government1 watch most attentively the  
appointment of the permanent staff1 and 
further each single member of the       
representative government in his        
province1 in his department1 in his     
arrondissement picks and chooses the    
candidates and really appoints the      

permanent staff4 ,this is1 of course1   
necessary1 if the national will is to be
 paramount here as well as elsewhere1   
and if the people is to secure servants 
of its own type1 if it is to choose its 
own magistrates1 as ,montesquieu said4  
,the people1 then1 chooses its servants 
through the intervention of its         
representatives2 and consider1 to return
 to our point1 how absolutely necessary 
it is for it to secure representatives  
who are intellectually the exact image  
and imitation of itself4 ,everything    
dovetails neatly together4  ,here then  
we have the people interfering          
influentially in the appointment of the 
civil service4 ,it continues to do      
everything itself4 ,complaints are      
raised on all sides of this confusion of
 politics with the business of          
administration1 and indeed we hear      
continually that politics pervade       
everything4 ,but what is the reason of  
this8 ,it is the principle of the       
national sovereignty asserting itself4  

,politics1 political power1 means the   
will of the majority of the nation1 and 
is it not fitting that the will of the  
majority should make itself felt--indeed
 need we be surprised that it insists on
 making itself felt--in the details of  
public business1 as administered by the 
permanent staff1 as well as elsewhere8  
,the ideal of democracy is that the     
people should elect its own rulers1 or1 
if this is not its ideal1 it is its     
idea1 and this is what it does under a  
parliamentary democracy through the     
intervention of its representatives4    
,this is all very well1 but efficiency  
has been dealt another blow4 ,for how is
 a candidate to recommend himself for an
 office to which appointment is made by 
the people and its representatives8 ,by 
his merit8 ,his chiefs and his fellow   
civil servants might be good judges of  
that2 but the people or its             
representatives are much less capable of
 judging4  ,the people is admirably     
fitted to choose those to whom it has to

 entrust some part of its authority2 so 
,montesquieu2 we must now examine this  
saying a little more closely4 ,what     
reasons does the philosopher give8 ,the 
people can only be guided by things of  
which it cannot be ignorant1 and which  
fall1 so to speak1 within its own       
observation4 ,it knows very well that a 
man has experience in war1 and that he  
has had such and such successes2 it is  
therefore quite capable of electing a   
general4 ,it knows that a judge is      
industrious1 that many of those who are 
litigants in his court go away          
satisfied1 and that he has never been   
convicted of bribery1 and this is enough
 to warrant it in appointing to any     
judicial office4 ,it has been impressed 
by the magnificence or riches of some   
citizen1 and this fits it for appointing
 an aedile4 ,all these things are       
matters of fact about which the man in  
the street has better knowledge than the
 king in his palace4  ,this passage1 ,i 
confess1 does not appear to be          

convincing4 ,why should not a king in   
his palace know of the riches of a      
financier1 the reputation of a judge or 
the success of a colonel just as well as
 the man in the street8 ,there is no    
difficulty in getting information about 
such things4 ,the people knows that such
 an one was always a good judge and such
 another always an excellent officer4   
,therefore it is qualified to appoint a 
general or a high-court judge or other  
officer of the law4 ,so be it1 but for  
the selection of a young judge or a     
young and untried officer what special  
source of information has the people8 ,i
 cannot find that it has any4 ,in this  
very argument1 ,montesquieu limits the  
competence of the people to the election
 of the great chiefs1 and of the most   
exalted magistrates1 and indeed further 
confines the popular prerogative in this
 matter to assigning an office and      
career to one who has already given     
proof of his capacity4 ,but for putting 
the competent man for the first time in 

the place where he is wanted1 how has   
the people any special instinct or      
information8 ,montesquieu shows that the
 people can recognise ability when it   
has been proved1 but he says nothing to 
show that it recognises readily nascent1
 unproved talent4 ,the argument of      
,montesquieu is not here conclusive4    
,he has been led astray1 it seems to me1
 by his desire to present his argument  
antithetically 7using the term in its   
logical sense74 ,what he really wished  
to prove was not so much the truth of   
the proposition that he was then        
advancing1 but the falsity of quite     
another proposition4 ,the question for  
him1 the question which he had in his   
mind1 was as follows3 ,is the people    
capable of governing the state1 of      
taking measures beforehand1 and of      
understanding and solving the           
difficulties of home and foreign        
affairs8 ,by no means4 ,then is it fit  
to elect its own magistrates8 ,well1 it 
might do that4 ,thus he had been led    

away by this antithesis so far as to    
say3 ,able to govern8--,certainly not6  
,able to elect its own magistrates8     
,admirably6 ,the explanation of the     
whole paragraph which ,i have just      
quoted lies in the conclusion1 which    
runs as follows3 ,all these things are  
matters of fact about which the man in  
the street has better knowledge than the
 king in his palace4 ,but can the people
 pursue a policy and know how to avail  
itself of the places1 occasions1 and    
times when action will be profitable8   
,no6 certainly not4  ,the truth is that 
the people is a little better fitted to 
choose a magistrate than to undertake a 
policy for the gradual humbling of the  
,house of ,austria4 ,but not very much  
so1 as it is only a little more         
difficult to humble the ,house of       
,austria1 than it is to discover the man
 who is able to do it4  ,the masses are 
particularly incapable of making initial
 appointments and of giving promotion in
 the early stages of a career to those  

who deserve it4 ,yet in a democracy this
 is what they are constantly doing4     
,again1 by what means has the candidate 
for civil service employment1 who is    
favoured by the people and its          
representatives1 earned their approval8 
,by his merit1 of which the people and  
its representatives are very bad judges8
 ,no6 ,by what then8 ,by his conformity 
to the general views of the people2 that
 is1 by the subserviency of his         
political opinions4 ,the political      
opinions of a candidate for civil       
service employment are the only things  
which mark him out to the popular choice
 because they are the only subjects on  
which the people is a good judge4  ,yes1
 but the subserviency of his political  
opinions may be combined with real      
merit4 ,true1 but this is a mere matter 
of chance4 ,the people is not1 perhaps1 
in this particular matter consciously   
hostile to efficiency1 rather it is     
indifferent1 or ignores the             
qualification altogether4 ,indeed1 there

 is no great compliment paid to         
efficiency in such transactions4  ,here 
is what inevitably happens4 ,the        
candidate for a permanent appointment   
who is not conscious of possessing any  
particular merit is not slow to realise 
that it is by his political opinions    
that he will succeed1 and he naturally  
professes those which are wanted4 ,the  
candidate who is conscious of merit1    
very often knowing very well what less  
meritorious competitors are about1 and  
not wishing to be beaten1 also professes
 the same useful opinions4 ,there we    
have that infection of evil1 which ,m4  
,renouvier has explained so admirably in
 his ,science de la ,morale4  ,first1   
then1 we see how most of the candidates 
chosen by the mandatories of the people 
are incapable2 others who are chosen in 
spite of their capacity are men of      
indifferent character2 and character1 we
 must admit1 in all or nearly all public
 careers is a necessary part of         
efficiency4  ,there remains a small     

number of meritorious persons who have  
never identified themselves with current
 political opinions1 and who have       
slipped into public employment1 thanks  
to some brief moment of inattention on  
the part of the politicians4 ,these     
intruders sometimes get on by the mere  
force of circumstances1 but they never  
reach the highest posts which are always
 reserved1 as indeed is proper and      
fitting1 for those in whom the people   
has put its trust4  ,this is how the    
people administers as well as governs   
through the intervention of the         
representative system1 dictating to     
ministers the policy and the details of 
government4  --,i realise1 some one here
 will object1 that administrators are   
nominated by the people1 but ,i do not  
see how the affairs of the country are  
actually administered by the people4--  
,well1 ,i will tell you4 ,in the first  
place1 by nominating officials it is    
already far on the road to controlling  
them1 for it infuses into the body of   

the permanent civil service the spirit  
of the people to the exclusion of every 
other source of inspiration1 and        
effectually prevents the civil service  
from becoming an aristocracy as         
otherwise it has always a tendency to   
do4 ,next1 the people does not confine  
itself to electing its administrators1  
it watches and spies on them1 keeps them
 in leading strings1 and just as the    
popular representatives dictate to      
ministers the details of government1 so 
also they dictate to administrators the 
details of administration4  ,a prefet1 a
 procureur-general1 an engineer-in-chief
 under democratic rule is a much        
harassed man4 ,he has to play his own   
hand against his ministerial chief and  
the deputies of his district4 ,he ought 
to obey the minister1 but he has also to
 obey the deputies of the district which
 he administers4 ,in this connection    
curious points arise and situations not 
a little complicated4 ,the prefet owes  
obedience to the deputies and to the    

minister1 and the minister obeys the    
deputies1 and it might therefore have   
been supposed that there was only one   
will1 the will which the prefet obeyed4 
,but what the minister has to obey is   
the general will of the popular         
representatives1 and it is this will    
that he transmits for the allegiance of 
the prefet2 but then the prefet finds   
himself colliding against the individual
 wills of the deputies of his district4 
,the result is what we may call         
conflicts of obedience which have       
extraordinary interest for the          
psychologist1 but which are less        
agreeable for the prefet1 the           
engineer-in-chief1 or the               
procureur-general4  ,we note then1 in   
the first place1 how everything concurs 
to make the representative of the       
popular will as incompetent as he is    
omnipotent4 ,incompetent he undoubtedly 
is1 as we have already seen1 to start   
with1 and if he were not so already1 he 
would certainly become so by reason of  

the trade or rather of the miscellaneous
 assortment of trades which are thrust  
upon him4 ,the surest way of making a   
man incompetent is to make him          
,jack-of-all-trades1 for then he will be
 master of none4 ,in the next place1 the
 representative of the popular will and 
spirit1 besides his trade of legislator1
 has to cross-examine ministers and to  
dictate to them the details of their    
duty1 that is to say1 he has to busy    
himself in all home and foreign         
politics4 ,he has also to administer1 by
 choosing and watching administrators   
and by controlling and inspiring their  
actions4 ,without saying anything of the
 small individual services which it is  
his interest to render to his           
constituents and which his constituents 
are by no means backward in demanding1  
he looks on himself as responsible for  
the conduct of things in general4 ,he   
becomes a sort of universal foreman1 not
 a man1 but a man-orchestra1 a busybody1
 so busy that he can apply himself to   

nothing4 ,he cannot study1 or think1 or 
investigate1 or1 to speak accurately1   
acquire any sense at all4  ,if he be    
efficient in some particular subject1   
when he enters on his public career1 he 
becomes hopelessly inefficient in all   
subjects after a few years of public    
life1 and then1 void of all             
individuality1 he remains nothing but a 
public man1 that is1 a man representing 
the popular will and never thinking1 or 
able to think1 of anything but how to   
make that will prevail4  ,and1 to press 
the point again1 this is all that is    
wanted of him2 for can you conceive a   
representative of the popular will1 who 
had somehow preserved a measure of      
competence in financial or judicial     
administration1 who would prefer1 before
 other candidates1 not a political      
partisan but a man of merit1 knowledge  
and aptitude1 and who would even approve
 in an administrator not acts of        
political partiality but acts that are  
just and in conformity with the         

interests of the state8 ,why6 ,such a   
man would be a detestable servant in the
 eyes of democracy4  ,yes1 and ,i have  
known such a man4 ,he was not wanting in
 intelligence or wit and he was honest4 
,a lawyer1 he was naturally interested  
in politics4 ,for local reasons he had  
failed to be elected as deputy or as    
senator4 ,tired of fighting1 he obtained
 a judicial appointment by the influence
 of his political friends4 ,he became   
president of court4 ,a case was brought 
before him where the accused1 a person  
not perhaps of altogether blameless     
life1 was clearly not guilty of any     
indictable offence4 ,the accused1       
however1 a former prefet1 appointed by a
 government now become very unpopular1  
and known as a reactionary and an       
aristocrat1 was pursued by the animosity
 of the whole democratic population of  
the town and province4 ,the president1  
in the face of openly expressed         
hostility in court1 acquitted him4 ,in  
the evening the president remarked1 not 

without a touch of humour3 ,there1 that 
serves them right for not making me a   
senator6 ,in other words3 ,if they had  
accepted me as a politician1 they would 
have made me a fool1 or at least        
paralysed my efficiency4 ,but they would
 not have it2 so here ,i am1 a man who  
knows the law and applies it4 ,so much  
the worse for them6  ,by making a man a 
slave ,zeus took from him half his soul4
 ,so ,homer4 ,by making a man a         
politician1 ,demos takes from him his   
whole soul1 and in omitting to make him 
a politician1 it is foolish enough to   
leave him his soul4  ,this is why ,demos
 hates a permanent civil service4 ,an   
irremovable magistrate or functionary is
 a man whom the constitution sets free  
from the grip of the populace4 ,an      
irremovable official is a man           
enfranchised1 a free man4 ,demos does   
not love free men4  ,this will explain  
why in every nation where it is         
paramount1 democracy suspends from time 
to time the irremovable independent     

official element wherever it is found4  
,the object is nominally to clarify and 
filter the personnel of the official    
world2 but really it is intended to     
teach the officials whom it spares1 that
 their permanence is only very relative 
and that1 like every one else1 they have
 to reckon with the sovereignty of the  
people which will turn and rend them if 
they venture to be too independent4     
,according to the constitution of #ahgc 
there were irremovable senators in      
,france4 ,in the interest of good       
government1 this was perhaps a sound    
arrangement4 ,the irremovable senators1 
in the scheme of the constitution1 were 
intended to be1 and in fact were1       
political and administrative veterans   
from whose knowledge1 efficiency and    
experience their colleagues were to     
profit4 ,the plan1 from this point of   
view1 might have worked well if the     
irremovable senators had not been       
elected by their colleagues but had     
become so by right2 for example every   

former ,president of the ,republic1     
every former president of the ,cour de  
,cassation1 every former president of   
the ,court of ,appeal1 every admiral1   
every archbishop might ex officio have  
been raised to the rank of senator for  
life4 ,from the democratic point of     
view1 however1 it was regarded as a     
positive outrage that there should exist
 a representative of the people who had 
not to render account to the people1 a  
representative of the people who had    
nothing to fear from the accidents of   
re-election1 no risk of failing to      
secure re-election1 in other words that 
a man should be elected for his supposed
 efficiency1 in no sense representing   
the people but himself alone4           
,permanent senators were abolished4     
,obviously they constituted a political 
aristocracy1 founded on the pretence of 
services rendered1 and the ,senate which
 elected them also fell under the taint 
of aristocratic leanings since at that  
time it recruited its members by        

co-optation4 ,this of course could not  
be tolerated4     ,,chapter ,,iii4      
,,the ,,refuges ,,of ,,efficiency4      
,will efficiency then1 you may well ask1
 when driven out of all public          
employment1 find refuge somewhere8      
,certainly it will4 ,in private         
employments and in employments paid by  
public companies4 ,barristers1          
solicitors1 doctors1 business men1      
manufacturers and authors are not paid  
by the state1 nor are engineers1        
mechanics1 railway employees2 and so far
 from their efficiency being a bar to   
their employment1 it is their most      
valuable asset4 ,when a man consults his
 lawyer or his medical adviser he       
obviously has no interest in their      
politics1 and when a railway company    
chooses an engineer1 it enquires into   
his qualifications and ability and is   
quite indifferent as to whether his     
political views coincide with the       
general mentality of the people4  ,it is
 for this reason1 or at least partly for

 this reason1 that democracy tries to   
nationalise all employment1 as a step in
 the direction of the nationalisation of
 everything4 ,for instance it can partly
 nationalise the medical profession by  
establishing appointments for doctors1  
at relief offices1 schools1 and lycees4 
,it can also partly nationalise the     
legal profession by appointing          
state-paid professors of law4  ,already 
the ,state has considerable control over
 this class of person1 for most of them 
have relations in government employment1
 whom they do not wish to bring into bad
 odour by seeming hostile to the        
opinions of the majority4 ,the ,state1  
however1 wants to hold them in still    
tighter control by seizing every        
opportunity of nationalising and        
socialising them more completely4  ,the 
,state wants also to destroy all large  
associations1 and to absorb their       
activities4 ,the state purchase of a    
railway1 for instance1 is1 in the first 
place1 a means of exploiting the        

company2 for there is always a hope that
 the ,state will be able to filch       
something out of the transaction2 but   
its chief recommendation lies in the    
fact that it suppresses a whole army of 
the company's officials and employees1  
who were under no obligation to please  
the ,government1 and who had no other   
interest but to do their work properly4 
,the ,state will thus transform this    
free population into government         
employees1 whose primary duty is to be  
docile and subservient4  ,under the     
extreme form and under the complete form
 of this regime1 that is to say under   
socialism1 everyone will be a government
 official4  ,consequently1 say the      
,socialist theorists1 all the alleged   
drawbacks above mentioned will          
disappear4 ,the ,state1 the democracy1  
the dominant party1 whatever you choose 
to call it1 will no longer be obliged to
 select its servants1 as you say it     
does1 by reason of their subservience   
and their incompetence1 because every   

citizen will be an official4 ,thus too  
will disappear that dual social system1 
under which half the population lives on
 the ,state1 while the other half is    
independent1 and prides itself on its   
superiority in character1 in            
intelligence and in efficiency4         
,socialism solves the problem4  ,i do   
not agree4 ,under socialism1 the        
electoral system1 and1 therefore1 the   
party system will still exist4 ,the     
citizens will choose the legislators1   
the legislators will choose the         
,government1 and the ,government will   
choose the directors of labour and the  
distributors of the means of            
subsistence4 ,parties1 that is1         
combinations of interests1 will still   
exist1 and each party will want to      
capture the legislature in order to     
secure the election1 from its own       
number1 of the directors of labour and  
the distributors of the means of        
subsistence4 ,these directors and       
distributors will be the new aristocrats

 of socialism1 and they will be expected
 to arrange soft jobs and ampler rations
 for the members of their own group or  
party4  ,except that wealth and the last
 vestiges of liberty have been          
suppressed1 nothing has been changed1   
and all the objections above mentioned  
still hold4 ,there is no solution here4 
,if it were a solution1 then the        
socialist government could not long     
remain elective4 ,it would have to reign
 by divine right1 like the ,jesuits in  
,paraguay4 ,it would have to be a       
despotism1 not only in its policy but in
 its origin1 in fact a monarchy4 ,no    
intelligent king has any inducement to  
choose incompetent men as his officials4
 ,his interest would lead him to do     
exactly the opposite4 ,you will say that
 an intelligent king is a very rare1    
even an abnormal thing4 ,i readily      
agree4 ,except in a very few instances1 
which history records with amazement1 a 
king has exactly the same reasons as the
 people for selecting as his favourites 

men who will not eclipse nor contradict 
him1 and who consequently seldom turn   
out to be the best of citizens either in
 respect of intelligence or character4  
,elective socialism and despotic        
socialism have the same faults as       
democracy as we understand the term4    
,besides1 in truth1 the drift of        
democracy towards socialism is nothing  
but a reversion to despotism4 ,if       
socialism were established1 it would    
begin by being elective1 and as every   
elective system lives and breathes and  
has its being in the party system1 the  
dominant party would elect the          
legislature1 consequently it would      
constitute the ,government and would    
extort from that ,government1 simply    
because it has the power to extort it1  
every conceivable form of privilege4    
,exploitation of the country by the     
majority would result1 as in every      
country where elective government       
prevails4  ,a socialist government      
therefore is primarily an oligarchy of  

directors of labour and distributors of 
subsistence4 ,it is a very close        
oligarchy1 for those beneath it are     
quite defenceless1 levelled down to an  
equality of poverty and misery4 ,it is a
 form of government very difficult to   
replace1 for it holds in its hands the  
threads of such an intricate            
organisation that it must be protected  
against crude attempts to change it1 and
 so it tends to be a permanent          
oligarchy4 ,it would therefore          
concentrate very quickly round a leader1
 or at any rate1 relegate to the second 
rank the national representatives and   
the electorate4  ,such a course of      
events would be very similar to what    
occurred under the ,first ,empire in    
,france1 when the military caste        
eclipsed and domineered over everything4
 ,it became continuously necessary to   
the ,state1 and though that necessity   
passed away1 it was soon recalled4 ,the 
caste then closed its ranks round the   
leader who gave it unity1 and the       

strength of unity4                 99   
99       99       99       99  ,so under
 socialism1 more slowly and perhaps     
after the lapse of a generation1 the    
directors of labour and the distributors
 of food1 peaceful ,janissaries of the  
new order1 would form themselves into a 
caste1 very close1 very coherent1 and   
7unlike legislators for whom an         
executive council can always be         
substituted71 quite indispensable1 and  
would close their ranks round a chief   
who would give them unity and the       
strength of unity4  ,before we knew     
socialism1 we used to say that democracy
 tended naturally to despotism4 ,the    
situation seems somewhat changed1 and we
 might now say that it tends to         
socialism3 really nothing has changed4  
,for in tending towards socialism it is 
towards despotism that it tends4        
,socialism is not conscious of this1 for
 it imagines that it is journeying      
towards equality1 but out of these      
utopias of equality it is ever despotism

 that emerges4  ,but this is a          
digression which refers to the future2  
let us return to the matter in hand4    
,,chapter ,,iv4  ,,the ,,competent      
,,legislator4   ,democracy1 in its      
modern form1 encroaches first upon the  
executive and then upon the             
administrative authorities1 and reduces 
them to subjection by means of its      
delegates1 the legislators1 whom it     
chooses in its own image1 that is to    
say1 because they are incompetent and   
governed by passion1 just as in the     
words of ,montesquieu1 though he perhaps
 contradicts himself a little3 ,the     
people is moved only by its passions4   
,what ought then the character of the   
legislator to be8 ,the very opposite1 it
 seems to me1 of the democratic         
legislator1 for he ought to be well     
informed and entirely devoid of         
prejudice4  ,he ought to be well        
informed1 but his information should not
 consist only of book learning1 although
 an extensive legal knowledge is of the 

greatest use1 as it will prevent him    
from doing1 as so often happens1 the    
exact opposite of what he intends to do4
 ,he should also understand intimately  
the temperament and character of the    
people for whom he legislates4  ,for a  
nation should only be given the laws and
 commandments that it can tolerate1 as  
,solon said3 ,i have given them the best
 laws that they could endure1 and the   
,god of ,israel said to the ,jews3 ,i   
have given you precepts which are not   
good1 that is to say1 they have only the
 goodness which your wickedness will    
tolerate4 ,this is the sponge1 says     
,montesquieu1 which wipes out all the   
difficulties that can be raised against 
the laws of ,moses4  ,the legislator1   
then1 ought to understand the           
temperament and genius of the people    
because he has to frame its laws4 ,as   
the ,germans say1 he ought to be an     
expert on the psychology of races4      
,further1 he ought to understand the    
temperament1 peculiarities and character

 of the people1 without sharing its     
temperament himself4 ,for where the     
passions and inclinations are concerned1
 experience is not knowledge4 ,on the   
contrary1 experience prevents us from   
really knowing2 and indeed one of the   
conditions of knowledge is absence of an
 experience which may be another word   
for bias4  ,the ideal legislator1 or    
indeed any legislator worthy of the     
name1 ought to understand the general   
tendencies of his people1 but he ought  
to be able to view them from a position 
of detachment and to be able to control 
them1 because it is his business partly 
to satisfy and partly to combat these   
tendencies4  ,he has partly to satisfy  
them1 or at least1 to consider them1    
because a law which outraged the        
national temperament would be like      
,roland's mare1 which had every         
conceivable good quality with this one  
serious defect1 that she was dead1 and  
born dead4 ,suppose the ,romans had been
 given an international law decreeing   

respect for conquered peoples1 it would 
have been a dead letter1 and by a sort  
of contagion it would have led to the   
neglect of other laws4 ,suppose the     
,french were given a liberal law1 a law 
prescribing respect for the individual  
rights of the man and the citizen4      
,liberty1 the object of such a law1 is  
for the ,french1 as ,baron ,joannes has 
remarked3 ,the right of each man to do  
what he likes and to prevent other men  
from doing what they like4 ,in ,france  
such a law would never obtain any but a 
very grudging allegiance1 and it would  
certainly lead to the neglect of other  
laws4  ,the legislator ought therefore  
to understand the natural idiosyncrasies
 of his people in order to know how far 
he dare venture to oppose them4  ,partly
 he must combat them1 because law should
 be to a nation1 or otherwise it is     
merely a police regulation1 what the    
moral law is to an individual4 ,law     
should be a restraint imposed           
continuously in the hope of future      

improvements4 ,it should be a curb on   
dangerous passions and injurious        
desires4 ,it should aid the warfare of  
enlightened selfishness against the     
selfishness of which all are ashamed4   
,that is what ,montesquieu meant when he
 said that morals should correct        
climate1 and laws should correct morals4
  ,the law1 therefore1 to a certain     
extent should correct national          
tendencies1 it should be loved a little 
because it is felt to be just1 feared a 
little because it is severe1 hated a    
little because it is to a certain degree
 out of sympathy with the prevalent     
temper of the day1 and respected because
 it is felt to be necessary4  ,this is  
the law that the legislator has to      
frame1 and therefore he ought to have   
expert knowledge of the genius of the   
people for whom he legislates4 ,he must 
understand both those tendencies which  
will resist and those which will welcome
 him4 ,he must know how far he can go   
unopposed and how much he can venture   

without forfeiting his authority4  ,this
 is the principal and essential         
qualification for the legislator4  ,the 
second1 as we said before1 is that he   
must be impartial4 ,the very essence of 
the legislator is that he should have   
moderation1 that virtue on which ,cicero
 set so high a value1 which is so rare1 
if we look to its real meaning1 the     
perfect balance of soul and mind4 ,it   
seems to me1 said ,montesquieu3 and ,i  
have written this book solely to prove  
it1 that the spirit of moderation is    
essential in a legislator1 for          
political1 as well as moral right1 lies 
between two extremes4  ,nothing is more 
difficult for a man than to control his 
passions1 or more difficult for a       
legislator than to control the passions 
of the people of whom he forms a part1  
to say nothing of his own4 ,aristotle1  
says ,montesquieu1 wanted to gratify1   
first1 his jealousy of ,plato and then  
his love for ,alexander4 ,plato was     
horrified at the tyranny of the         

,athenians4 ,machiavel was full of his  
idol1 the ,duke of ,valentinois4 ,thomas
 ,more1 who was wont to speak of what he
 had read rather than of what he had    
thought1 wanted to govern every state   
upon the model of a ,greek city4        
,harrington could think of nothing but  
an ,english republic1 while hosts of    
writers thought confusion must reign    
wherever there was no monarchy4 ,laws   
are always in contact with the passions 
and prejudices of the legislator1       
whether these are his alone1 or common  
to him and to his people4 ,sometimes    
they pass through and merely take colour
 from the prejudice of the day1         
sometimes they succumb to it and make it
 part of themselves4  ,this is just the 
opposite of what should be4 ,the        
legislator should be to the people what 
conscience is to the heart of the       
individual4 ,he should understand its   
besetting passions in all their bearings
 and not be deceived by subterfuge or   
hypocrisy4 ,sometimes he must attack    

them boldly1 sometimes play off one     
against another1 or favour one at the   
expense of another which is less        
influential1 now yielding ground1 now   
recovering it1 but he must ever be      
skilful and impartial and never be      
intimidated1 diverted from his purpose1 
nor deceived by his natural enemies4    
,he should be1 so to speak1 more        
conscientious than conscience itself1   
because he must never forget that he has
 to obey to-morrow the law which he     
makes to-day--semel jussit semper       
paruit4 ,he must1 therefore1 be         
absolutely disinterested1 a thing most  
difficult for him1 but for which        
conscience requires no effort4  ,not    
only must he be without passion1 but he 
must have trained himself to be         
impervious to passion1 which is much    
more4 ,we must conceive of him as a     
conscience that has risen from the ashes
 of passion4  ,as ,rousseau said1 to    
discover the perfect ruler for human    
society we must find a superior         

intelligence who has seen all the       
passions of man but has experienced none
 of them1 who has had no sort of        
relations with our nature but who knows 
it to the core1 whose happiness is not  
dependent on us1 but who wishes to      
promote our welfare1 in a word1 one who 
aims at a distant renown1 in a remote   
future1 and who is content to labour in 
one age and to enjoy in another4  ,this 
is why the ingenious ,greeks imagined   
certain legislators going into exile to 
some remote and unknown retreat1 as soon
 as they had made the people adopt and  
swear obedience to their laws until     
their return4 ,it may have been to bind 
the citizens by this oath1 but is it not
 equally probable that they wished to   
escape from the laws which they         
themselves had made8 ,possibly they felt
 that they could make them all the      
stricter with the prospect of being able
 to evade obedience of them by flight4  
,proudhon said3 ,i dream of a republic  
so liberal that in it ,i shall be       

guillotined as a reactionary4 ,lycurgus 
was perhaps like ,proudhon1 in that he  
founded so severe a republic that he    
knew he could not live under it and     
resolved to leave it as soon as it was  
established4 ,solon and ,sylla remained 
in the states to which they had given   
laws2 we must therefore place them      
higher than ,lycurgus who has perhaps   
this excuse for himself that in all     
probability he never existed at all4    
,but the legend remains to show that the
 legislator should be so superior to his
 own passions and to the passions of his
 people1 that1 as legislator1 he should 
make laws before which1 as a man1 he    
should stand in awe4  ,this moderation1 
in the sense in which we use the term1  
has sometimes led the legislator to     
suggest or insinuate laws rather than   
impose them4 ,this is not always        
possible1 but it is so occasionally4    
,montesquieu tells us the following of  
,st4 ,louis3 ,seeing the manifold abuses
 of justice in his time he endeavoured  

to make them unpopular4 ,he made many   
regulations for the courts in his own   
domain1 and in those of his barons1 and 
he was so successful1 that only a short 
time after his death his methods were   
adopted in the courts by many of his    
nobles4 ,thus this prince attained his  
object1 although his regulations were   
not promulgated as a general law for the
 whole kingdom1 but merely as an example
 which any one might follow in his own  
interest4 ,he got rid of an evil by     
making patent the better way4 ,when men 
saw in his courts and in those of his   
nobles more reasonable and natural forms
 of procedure1 more conformable to      
religion and morality1 more favourable  
to public tranquillity and to the       
security of persons and property1 they  
adopted the substance and abandoned the 
shadow4 ,to suggest where you cannot    
compel1 to guide where you cannot       
demand1 that is the supreme form of     
skill4  ,montesquieu adds with some     
optimism though no doubt the idea is    

encouraging3 ,reason has a natural      
empire1 we resist it1 but it triumphs   
over our resistance2 we persist in error
 for a time but we always have to return
 to it4  ,the instance above quoted is  
very remote1 and can hardly be applied  
to anything in our day4 ,but consider1  
for instance1 the law of ,sunday        
observance which has been revived from  
the ecclesiastical law4 ,it was a       
mistake to include it in the ,code      
because it was antagonistic to many     
,french customs1 and1 in many ways1 to  
the national temperament4 ,the result is
 what might have been expected1 namely1 
that it has only been carried out in    
rare instances1 and with an infinity of 
trouble4 ,it might have been made the   
subject of an edict without being       
included in the ,code4 ,the ,state might
 have given a holiday on ,sunday to all 
its officials1 employees and workmen4   
,it might have been made quite clear    
simply by a circular from the ,minister 
of ,justice that a workman would not be 

punished for breach of contract by      
refusing to work on a ,sunday4 ,the law 
of a weekly day of rest would then have 
existed1 without being formally         
promulgated1 and would have been limited
 precisely where it should be1 by       
agreement between masters and men who   
would submit to working on ,sundays when
 they saw that it was necessary and     
inevitable4 ,moreover this law would be 
strong enough to modify without         
destroying the ancient customs of the   
people4  ,here is another instance which
 occurs within the law laid down by the 
,code1 where the legislator makes use of
 a method of suggestion and             
recommendation4 ,early in the nineteenth
 century the legislator considered that 
it was seemly for a husband who         
surprised his wife in adultery to kill  
both her and her accomplice4 ,the       
sentiment is perhaps questionable1 but  
at all events1 it was current4 ,was it  
given legal sanction8 ,no1 not          
precisely4 ,it is inserted in the law in

 the form of an insinuation1 a discreet 
recommendation and affectionate         
encouragement4 ,the legislator wrote    
these words3 ,in flagrante delicto      
murder is excusable4 ,i am not approving
 the sentiment1 but only this manner of 
indicating rather than enforcing the law
 and what is thought to be a wholesome  
practice1 and in other instances ,i     
should think it excellent4  ,finally1   
one of the essential qualities of the   
legislator is to show discretion in     
changing existing laws1 and for this    
purpose he should be immune from the    
passions of men or at all events        
complete master of those which beset    
him4 ,for law has no real authority     
unless it is ancient4 ,where a law is   
merely a custom which has become law1 it
 is invested with considerable authority
 from the first1 because it gains       
strength by the antiquity of the        
original custom4 ,when on the other hand
 a law is not an old custom but runs    
counter to custom1 then1 before it can  

have any authority1 it must grow old and
 become a custom itself4  ,in both cases
 it is on its antiquity that the law    
must depend for its strength4 ,the law  
is like a tree1 at first it is a tender 
sapling1 then it grows up1 its bark     
hardens1 and its roots go deep into the 
ground and cling to the rock4  ,we ought
 to consider carefully before we venture
 to replace the forest tree by the young
 sapling4 ,most legislators1 said ,usbek
 to ,rhedi1,a have been men of limited  
abilities1 owing their position to a    
stroke of fortune1 and consulting       
nothing but their own whims and         
prejudices4 ,they have often abolished  
established laws quite unnecessarily1   
and plunged nations into the chaos that 
is inseparable from change4 ,it is true 
that1 owing to some odd chance arising  
out of the nature rather than out of the
 intelligence of mankind1 it is         
sometimes necessary to alter laws1 but  
the case is very rare and when it does  
arise it should be handled with a       

reverent touch4 ,when it is a question  
of changing the law1 much ceremony      
should be observed1 and many precautions
 taken1 in order that the people may be 
naturally persuaded that laws are sacred
 things1 and that many formalities must 
precede any attempt to alter them4  ,in 
this passage1 as so often elsewhere1    
,montesquieu is quite ,aristotelian1 for
 ,aristotle wrote3 ,it is evident that  
at times certain laws must be changed1  
but this requires great circumspection  
for1 when there is little to be gained  
thereby1 inasmuch as it is dangerous    
that citizens should be accustomed to   
find it easy to change the law1 it is   
better to leave a few errors in our     
magisterial and legislative arrangements
 than to accustom the people to constant
 change4 ,the disadvantage of having    
constant changes in the law is greater  
than any risk that we run of contracting
 a habit of disobedience to the law4    
,for the law assuredly will be          
disobeyed1 if we regard it as ephemeral1

 unstable1 and always on the point of   
being changed4  ,some knowledge of the  
laws of the most important nations1 a   
profound knowledge of the temperament1  
character1 sentiments1 passions1        
opinions1 prejudices and customs of the 
nation to which he belongs1 moderation  
of heart and mind1 judgment1            
impartiality1 coolness1 nay even a      
measure of stolidity1 these are the     
attributes of the ideal legislator4     
,rather they are the necessary          
qualifications of every man who purposes
 to frame a good law2 they are1 indeed1 
the elementary attributes of a          
legislator4  ,we have seen that it is   
the very opposite quality that democracy
 likes and expects of its legislators4  
,it selects incompetent and almost      
invariably ignorant men1 ,i have        
explained why2 and its nominees are of a
 double distilled incompetence in that  
their passions would certainly          
neutralise their efficiency if they     
possessed any4  ,further we have to     

observe this curious fact4 ,so entirely 
does democracy choose its legislators1  
because they are dominated by passion1  
and not in spite of the fact1 chooses   
them indeed precisely for the reasons   
for which it ought to reject them1 that 
any moderate1 clear-headed1 practical   
man who wants to be elected and make use
 of his powers1 has to start by         
dissembling his moderation1 and by      
making a noisy display of factious      
violence4 ,if he wants to be nominated  
to a post where it will be his business 
to defend and guarantee public security1
 he has to begin by advocating civil    
war3 to become a peacemaker he must     
first pose as a rebel4  ,every popular  
favourite passes through these two      
phases1 and has to complete one stage   
before he starts on the next4 ,is it not
 better1 you will ask1 that a man's     
whole career should be spent in defence 
of law and order rather than the latter 
part of it8 ,not at all1 because you    
cannot exercise any influence as a      

friend of law and order unless you have 
begun as an anarchist4  ,these changes  
of opinion occur so frequently that they
 merely raise a smile4 ,they have1      
however1 this drawback1 that the friend 
of law and order1 with a seditious past1
 never has an undisputed authority1 and 
he spends half his time explaining the  
reasons for his defection1 and this is a
 sore let and hindrance to his          
subsequent career4  ,the people always  
elects men swayed by real or simulated  
passion4 ,these will either always      
remain in a state of frenzied           
excitement1 and they are the great      
majority1 or they will become moderate  
men1 largely disqualified and           
handicapped1 as we have above shown1 for
 their new career4 ,the vast majority of
 these sentimentalists rush into        
politics instead of studying them with  
deliberation1 judgment and wisdom4 ,the 
canons of good government as above set  
out are entirely subverted4 ,the law    
does not control and restrain the       

passions of the populace4 ,legislation  
becomes little more than an expression  
of their frenzy1 a series of party      
measures levelled by one faction against
 the other4 ,the introduction of a bill 
is a challenge2 the passing of an act is
 a victory2 definitions which at once   
damn the legislator1 and convict the    
system4   ,a ,characters in             
,montesquieu's ,lettres ,persanes4      
,letter cxxix4     ,,chapter ,v4  ,,laws
 ,,under ,,democracy4   ,the truth of my
 contention is proved by the fact that  
nowadays all our laws are emergency     
laws1 a thing that no law should ever   
be4 ,montesquieu advised people to be   
very chary and to think twice before    
they destroyed old laws or pulled down  
an old house to run up a tent1 but his  
advice is completely ignored4 ,new laws 
are made for every change in the        
weather1 for every little daily incident
 in politics4 ,we are getting used to   
this hand-to-mouth legislation4 ,like   
the barbarian warrior1 of whom          

,demosthenes tells us1 who always       
protected that portion of his person    
which had just received a blow1 holding 
his shield up to his shoulder1 when his 
shoulder had been struck1 down again to 
his thigh when the blow fell there1 the 
dominant faction only makes laws to     
protect itself against an adversary who 
is1 or is thought to be1 already in the 
field1 or it introduces a hurried1      
ill-digested reform under the pressure  
of an alleged scandal4  ,if an aspirant 
to the tyranny1 as they used to say in  
,athens1 is nominated deputy in too many
 constituencies1 instantly a law is     
passed prohibiting multiple             
candidatures4 ,for the same reason1 for 
fear of the same man1 scrutin de liste  
is hurriedly replaced by scrutin        
d'arrondissement4,b  ,if an accused     
woman is supposed to have been          
ill-treated at her examination1 taken   
too abruptly before the interrogatory of
 the president1 or if the counts are    
ineptly set out by the public           

prosecutor1 instantly the whole of the  
criminal procedure is radically         
reformed4  ,it is the same everywhere4  
,the legislative workshops turn out only
 the latest novelties of the season4 ,or
 perhaps a newspaper would be a still   
better simile4 ,first there is the      
'interpellation1',c once at least every 
day2 that corresponds to the leading    
article4 ,then there are questions for  
ministers on this1 that and the other   
trivial occurrence2 that is the serial  
or short story4 ,then there is a bill   
brought in about something that happened
 the night before1 that is the special  
article4 ,then some deputy assaults his 
neighbour1 this is the general news     
column4  ,you could not have a more     
faithful representation of the country4 
,everything that happens in the morning 
is dealt with in the evening as it might
 be in the village pot-house4 ,the      
legislative chamber is an exaggerated   
reflection of the gossiping public4 ,now
 it ought not to be a copy of the       

country1 it ought to be its soul and    
brain4 ,but when a national             
representative assembly represents only 
the passions of the populace it cannot  
be otherwise than what it is4  ,in other
 words modern democracy is not governed 
by laws but by decrees1 for emergency   
laws are no better than decrees4 ,a law 
is an ancient heritage1 consecrated by  
long usage1 which men obey without      
stopping to think whether it be law or  
custom4 ,it forms part of a coherent1   
harmonious and logical whole4 ,a law    
improvised for an emergency is merely a 
decree4 ,this is one of the things that 
,aristotle saw better than any one4 ,he 
comments frequently upon the essential  
and fundamental distinction between the 
two1 and explains how it is as dangerous
 to misunderstand as to ignore it4 ,i   
quote the passage in which he brings    
this out most forcibly3 ,a fifth form of
 democracy is that in which not the law 
but the multitude has the supreme power1
 and supersedes the law by its decrees4 

,this is a state of affairs brought     
about by the demagogues4 ,for in        
democracies which are subject to the    
law1 the best citizens hold the first   
place and there are no demagogues2 but  
where the laws are not supreme1 there   
demagogues spring up4 ,for the people   
becomes a monarch and is many in one2   
and the many have the power in their    
hands1 not as individuals but           
collectively4444 ,and the people1 who is
 now a monarch1 and no longer under the 
control of law1 seeks to exercise       
monarchical sway1 and grows into a      
despot2 the flatterer is held in honour2
 this sort of democracy being relatively
 to other democracies what tyranny is to
 other forms of monarchy4  ,the spirit  
of both is the same1 and they alike     
exercise a despotic rule over the better
 citizens4 ,the decrees of the ,demos   
correspond to the edicts of the tyrant1 
and the demagogue is to the one what the
 flatterer is to the other4 ,both have  
great power--the flatterer with the     

tyrant1 the demagogue with democracies  
of the kind which we are describing4    
,the demagogues make the decrees of the 
people override the laws1 and refer all 
things to the popular assembly4 ,and    
therefore they grow great1 because the  
people has all things in its hands and  
they hold in their hands the votes of   
the people1 who is too ready to listen  
to them4 ,such a democracy is fairly    
open to the objection that it is not a  
constitution at all2 for where the laws 
have no authority there is no           
constitution4 ,the law ought to be      
supreme over all4 ,so that if democracy 
be a real form of government1 the sort  
of constitution in which all things are 
regulated by decrees is clearly not a   
democracy in the true sense of the word1
 for decrees relate only to particulars4
  ,this distinction between true law1   
that is to say1 venerable law1 framed to
 endure1 part of a co-ordinate scheme of
 legislation1 and an emergency law which
 is merely a decree like the wishes of a

 tyrant1 constitutes the whole          
difference1 if we could realise it1     
between the sociologists of antiquity   
and those of to-day4 ,by the term ,law1 
the ancient and the modern sociologists 
mean two different things and this is   
the reason for so many                  
misunderstandings4 ,when he speaks of   
law1 the modern sociologist means the   
expression of the general will at such  
and such a date1 #aiaj for instance4    
,the ancient sociologist would consider 
that the expression of the general will 
in the second year of the #gcrd         
,olympiad was not law at all1 but a     
decree4 ,a law to him would be a        
paragraph of the legislation of ,solon1 
,lycurgus or ,charondas4 ,whenever in a 
,greek or ,roman political treatise we  
meet the expression--a ,state governed  
by laws1 the only way to translate it   
is--a ,state governed by a very ancient 
and immutable legislation4 ,this gives  
the true meaning to the famous          
personification of laws in the ,phaedo1 

which would be quite meaningless if the 
,greeks had understood what we do by the
 term4 ,are laws the expression of the  
general will of the people8 ,if so why  
should ,socrates have respected them1 he
 who despised the people to the day he  
was condemned8 ,it would be absurd4     
,these laws which ,socrates respected   
were not the decrees of the people      
contemporary with ,socrates2 they were  
the ancient gods of the city1 which had 
protected it from the earliest days4    
,these laws may err in that they seemed 
to sanction the verdict that condemned  
,socrates to death1 but they were       
honourable1 venerable and inviolate1    
because they had been the guardians of  
the city for centuries1 and guardians of
 ,socrates himself until the day when   
they were misapplied against him4  ,a   
constitution1 therefore1 to adopt       
,aristotle's terminology1 is a ,state   
which obeys laws1 that is to say1 laws  
framed by its ancestors4  ,it is1 then1 
an aristocracy1 for it is even more     

aristocratic to obey our ancestors      
themselves by obeying the thoughts which
 they embedded in legislation1 five     
centuries ago1 than to obey the         
inheritors of their tradition1 the      
aristocrats of to-day4 ,for aristocrats 
of to-day belong only partly to         
tradition1 in that they live in the     
present4 ,whereas a fifteenth century   
law belongs to the fifteenth century and
 to no other period4 ,to obey law as    
understood by the ancient sociologists1 
did not mean obeying ,scipio who has    
just passed us on the ,via ,sacra4 ,it  
meant to obey his grandfather's great   
grandfather6 ,all this is               
ultra-aristocratic4  ,precisely6 ,law is
 an aristocratic thing2 only the        
emergency law1 the decree1 is           
democratic4 ,for this reason            
,montesquieu always speaks of a monarchy
 as being limited1 and1 at the same     
time1 maintained by its law4 ,what did  
this mean in his day1 when there was no 
expression of the general will to limit 

monarchy1 and when royalty possessed    
legislative power1 and could at will    
make and remake laws8 ,it could only    
mean one thing1 namely1 that            
,montesquieu's conception of law was the
 same as that of the ancient            
sociologists1--law far older than his   
time1 fundamental laws as he calls them1
 of the ancient monarchy1 which still   
bind and ought so to bind the monarch1  
whose rule without them would be        
despotism or anarchy4 ,law is           
essentially aristocratic4 ,it ordains   
that rulers should govern the people1   
and that the dead should govern the     
rulers4 ,the very essence of aristocracy
 is the rule of those who have lived    
over those who live1 for the benefit of 
those who shall live hereafter4         
,aristocracy1 properly so called1 is an 
aristocracy in the flesh4 ,law is a     
spiritual aristocracy4 ,aristocracy1 as 
represented by the aristocrats of       
to-day1 only represents the dead by     
tradition1 inheritance1 education1      

physiological heredity of temperament   
and characteristics4 ,law does not      
represent the dead1 it is the dead      
themselves1 it is their very thought    
perpetuated in immutable script4  ,a    
nation is aristocratic both in form and 
spirit which preserves its old          
aristocracy and maintains its vitality  
by careful infusions of new blood4      
,still more is that nation aristocratic 
which maintains its old legislation     
inviolate1 adding to it1 reverently and 
discreetly1 new laws which combine      
something of the modern spirit with the 
spirit of the old4 ,homines novi1 novae 
res4 ,homo novus means the man without  
ancestors who is worthy to be added to  
the ranks of the nobly born4 ,novae res 
are things without antecedents1 nay     
revolution itself4 ,novae res should    
only be introduced partially gradually1 
insensibly and progressively into       
ancient things1 as new men into the     
community of the old nobility4 ,law is  
more aristocratic than aristocracy      

itself1 hence democracy is the natural  
enemy of laws and can only tolerate     
decrees4  ,our examination of modern    
democracy has brought us to the         
following conclusions4 ,the             
representation of the country is        
reserved for the incompetent and also   
for those biassed by passion1 who are   
doubly incompetent4 ,the representatives
 of the people want to do everything    
themselves4 ,they do everything badly   
and infect the government and the       
administration with their passion and   
incompetence4   ,b ,see ,france1 by ,j4 
,e4 ,c4 ,bodley1 #ahii1 pp4 #ccd1 #cce4 
,under ,scrutin de liste the department 
is the electoral unit1 each having its  
complement of deputies allotted to it in
 proportion to its population1 and each 
elector having as many votes as there   
are seats ascribed to his department1   
without1 however1 the power to cumulate4
 ,scrutin d'arrondissement is election  
by single-member constituencies4 ,the   
arrondissement is the electoral unit4   

,c ,this is a question put to a minister
 by a deputy4 ,the effect 444 is        
somewhat similar to a motion to adjourn 
the house in the ,english ,parliament4  
,bodley1 p4 #dde4     ,,chapter ,,vi4   
,,the ,,incompetence ,,of ,,government4 
,this is not all4 ,the law of           
incompetence spreads still further1     
either by some process of logical       
necessity or by a sort of contagion4 ,it
 has often been made the subject of     
merriment1 for1 like all tragedy1 when  
we regard it with good humour the matter
 has its comic side1 that it is very    
rare for any high office to be given to 
a man who is competent for the post4    
,generally the ,minister of ,education  
is a lawyer2 the ,minister of ,commerce1
 an author2 the ,war ,minister1 a       
doctor2 the ,minister for the ,navy1 a  
journalist4 ,beaumarchais' epigram ,the 
post required a mathematician--it was   
given to a dancing master6 strikes the  
keynote much more of a democracy than of
 an absolute monarchy4  ,the matter is  

so generally recognised that it has a   
sort of retroactive effect upon the     
historical ideas of the masses4 ,three  
,frenchmen out of every four are        
convinced that ,carnot was a civilian1  
and the statement has often appeared in 
print4 ,why8 because it is inconceivable
 that under a democracy the ,war        
,minister could possibly be a soldier1  
or1 that the members of the ,convention 
could possibly have given the ,war      
,office to a soldier4 ,this appeared too
 paradoxical to be true4  ,at first     
sight this extraordinary method of      
making incompetent men into ministers   
seems merely a joke1 merely the subtle  
and entertaining vagaries of the goddess
 ,incompetence4 ,partly it is so but not
 entirely4 ,the man whose business it is
 to appoint ministers has to divide the 
choicest plums of office among the      
various groups of the majority which    
supports him4 ,as all of these groups do
 not contain specialists1 the highest   
offices are disposed of on political    

grounds1 and not on grounds of          
professional aptitude4 ,i have shown    
what the result is2 the only ministerial
 appointment which is made in a rational
 manner is that which the ,president of 
the ,council reserves for himself1 and  
even in this case in order to conciliate
 some important political personage he  
very often gives it up and takes some   
post for which he is not so well suited4
  ,see what follows3 each department is 
directed by an incompetent man1 who1 if 
he be conscientious1 sets himself to    
learn the work in which he ought to be a
 fully trained expert1 or1 if he be not 
conscientious1 and be pressed for time1 
as he always is1 he directs his         
department according to his general     
political theories and not according to 
practical common sense--a double        
distillation of incompetence4  ,we know 
the kind of speech a new ,minister of   
,agriculture makes to his staff4 ,he    
harangues them on the principles of the 
revolution of #aghi4  ,moreover1 in a   

highly centralised country1 the minister
 does everything in his own department4 
,he has to do everything under the      
pressure1 it is true1 of the national   
representatives2 but still his is the   
supreme authority4 ,it is easy to see   
what sort of decisions he will make4    
,they are often very little supported by
 law1 and sometimes are even contrary to
 law1 and then they remain a dead letter
 from the first4 ,ministerial circulars 
often have a remarkable character for   
illegality4 ,in that case they fall and 
are forgotten1 but not always before    
they have introduced a vast amount of   
trouble throughout the entire           
administration4  ,as to appointments1   
they are made1 as ,i have said1 by      
political influence1 and even when they 
are flagrantly improper and corrupt1    
there is no chance of their being       
corrected by the competence of a        
minister1 who1 holding enlightened views
 on the business and subordinates of his
 office1 is able to put his foot down   

and say ,no6 this will not do1 we must  
draw the line somewhere4     ,,chapter  
,,vii4  ,,judicial ,,incompetence4      
,here we find incompetence spreading its
 influence by the logical necessity of  
the case4 ,there are other quarters in  
which it grows by a sort of contagion4  
,have you ever noticed that the ancien  
regime1 in spite of grievous            
shortcomings1 by a sort of historical   
tradition1 maintained a certain respect 
for efficiency in its different forms8  
,for instance in matters of             
jurisdiction1 there were seignorial1    
ecclesiastical and military courts4     
,these were not founded as the result of
 argument and profound consideration1   
but by the natural course of events1 by 
history itself1 and they were maintained
 and approved by a monarchy which was   
verging on despotism4  ,seignorial      
jurisdiction1 without much rational     
justification1 was none the less of     
considerable utility2 it bound1 or was  
capable of binding1 the noble to his    

land1 it prevented him from losing sight
 of his vassals1 and his vassals from   
losing sight of him1 and was in fact a  
conservative force in the aristocratic  
constitution of the kingdom4 ,i submit  
that if this jurisdiction had been      
properly defined1 limited and modified1 
which was never done1 it would have been
 consonant with the law of competence4  
,there are various local matters which  
come quite properly within the province 
of the noble1 who in those days took the
 place of the magistrate4 ,all that was 
wanted was that such matters should have
 been defined with precision and that in
 every case appeal should have been     
allowed4  ,ecclesiastical jurisdiction  
was perfectly reasonable1 as offences   
committed by ecclesiastics have a       
special character of which ecclesiastics
 alone can judge4 ,this seems strange to
 modern ideas1 although nowadays there  
are commercial courts and conciliation  
boards1 because litigation between men  
of business1 between workmen and women  

workers1 and between employers and      
employed1 can only be decided by men who
 have technical knowledge of the subject
 in dispute4 ,appeal1 moreover1 to a    
higher court is always allowed4         
,finally1 in the old days there used to 
be military jurisdiction for precisely  
the same reason4  ,all these exceptional
 jurisdictions are objects of the       
liveliest apprehension to democracy1    
because they infringe the rule of       
uniformity1 which is the image and often
 the caricature of equality1 and also   
because they are a stronghold of        
efficiency4  ,democracy of course       
demolished aristocratic courts together 
with the aristocracy itself1 and        
ecclesiastical courts together with the 
,church when it ceased to be an estate  
of the realm4 ,any special jurisdictions
 which still remain are looked upon as  
instruments of aristocracy2             
courts-martial are held in abhorrence   
because they have ideas of their own in 
respect of military honour and duty1 and

 military offences4 ,therein lies their 
efficiency1 a thing absolutely          
necessary1 if we are to maintain        
military spirit and discipline in a     
strong army4 ,the private soldier or    
officer1 who is only judged and punished
 as a civilian1 will not be well judged 
nor adequately punished1 considering the
 special duties and services which are  
required of the army4 ,this is a        
question of moral as well as technical  
efficiency and to this the democracy    
pays no heed1 because it is convinced   
that no special efficiency is necessary 
and that common sense is all that is    
required4 ,common sense1 however1 is    
like wit2 it is useful in every walk of 
life1 but is not sufficient in any one  
of them4 ,this is just what democracy   
cannot or will not understand4  ,it     
makes just as great a mistake in its    
civil and criminal jurisdiction1 though 
it has1 up to now1 so far departed from 
its principles as to appoint qualified  
jurists to civil judgeships4 ,no one    

denies that this body of men is         
efficient4 ,those who act as judges know
 their law4 ,there is1 however1 as ,i   
have often had occasion to point out1 a 
moral as well as a technical efficiency1
 and in limiting the independence that  
is essential to moral efficiency1       
democracy neutralises the technical     
efficiency of its servants4 ,let me     
explain my meaning further4  ,formerly  
the magistracy was a recognised and     
autonomous branch of the public service1
 and as a result1 save as it was        
affected by revolution and in normal    
times by the fear of revolution1 enjoyed
 an absolute independence4 ,this gave1  
or rather preserved intact1 its moral   
efficiency4 ,for moral efficiency       
consists in an ability to act according 
to the dictates of conscience1 and is   
equivalent to a sort of moral           
independence4  ,now1 the magistrates    
form a department of the administration 
and are a body of officials4 ,the ,state
 appoints1 promotes or refuses to       

promote and pays them4 ,in short the    
,state has them at its mercy1 just as   
military officers are controlled by the 
,war ,office1 or tax-collectors by the  
,treasury4 ,hence they are deprived of  
their independence and moral efficiency1
 for they are always tempted to give    
judgment as the ,government would wish4 
,there is1 it is true1 a guarantee for  
their independence in the permanence of 
their appointments1 but this only       
applies to those who have reached the   
summit of their profession1 or are on   
the point of retiring1 or have no       
further interest in promotion4 ,the     
young magistrate who wants to get on1 a 
perfectly legitimate ambition1 is by no 
means independent1 for if he does not   
give satisfaction1 he may enjoy a       
peculiar kind of permanence1 the        
permanence of standing still at the     
starting point4 ,the only independent   
judges1 to whom justice is the sole     
interest1 are either those who have     
served for forty years or the ,president

 of the ,cour de ,cassation4 ,i may add 
also the man of independent means who is
 indifferent to promotion and content to
 spend all his time at the place of his 
first appointment4 ,he is exactly like  
the magistrates in old days1 but he and 
his kind get rarer every year4  ,at     
best1 moreover1 this permanence1 of     
which so much is thought1 is an illusory
 guarantee1 for it is often suspended by
 one ,government or another1 and the    
magistrates are constantly at the mercy 
of political crises4 ,their moral       
efficiency is indeed sorely tried4  ,i  
affirm1 therefore1 that this diminution 
of moral efficiency affects technical   
efficiency1 because magistrates dare not
 insist on technical exactitude when    
cases arise between the ,state and      
individuals1 or between those who are   
protected by ,government and those who  
are not4 ,though cases in which the     
,state is a party do not occur very     
often1 those in which friends of the    
,government are involved are of daily   

occurrence in a country where           
,government is a faction waging         
incessant warfare against all other     
factions4  ,it has been said with much  
reason that parliamentary government on 
a basis of universal suffrage is        
legalised and continuous civil war4 ,it 
is usually a bloodless civil war1 but   
its weapons are insults1 provocations1  
calumnies1 personalities1 libel actions4
 ,these go on from one year's end to the
 other4 ,in a country where such a state
 of affairs is prevalent1 the magistracy
 ought to be absolutely independent in  
order to be impartial4 ,yet it is       
precisely in a country like this that   
the magistracy1 not being independent   
and autonomous1 is obliged to avoid     
offending the party in office which1    
moreover1 is extremely exacting1 for it 
lives in constant fear that it may be   
turned out of power4  --,is there       
nothing to be done8 ,would you advocate 
a return to the practice of purchasing  
judicial appointments8--  ,in the first 

place1 this would not be anything so    
very terrible1 and secondly1 it might be
 quite possible to secure all the       
advantages of purchase without its      
actual practice4  ,i can show you that  
it is not so very terrible1 for the case
 is parallel with that of the           
exceptional jurisdictions1 the mention  
of which filled you with horror till you
 remembered the commercial courts and   
the councils of experts1 all excellent  
institutions4 ,we are appalled at the   
idea of a magistrate purchasing his     
office1 and yet we employ advocates and 
solicitors and other legal officials and
 trust them with our most precious      
interests1 yet they have1 many of them1 
either bought or inherited their        
practice4 ,under a system of purchase1  
we should be judged by lawyers of whom  
we required more extensive legal        
knowledge than is at present required of
 the profession4 ,we should be judged in
 fact by solicitors and advocates of a  
superior order4 ,there is nothing very  

alarming about that4  ,montesquieu was  
in favour of a system of purchase4      
,voltaire opposed it strongly4 ,they    
were both right and were indeed agreed  
on general principles4 ,montesquieu     
says3 ,venality1--the purchase          
system1--is a good thing under a        
monarchical form of government1 because 
work which would not be done from mere  
civic virtue is then undertaken as a    
family business4 ,each man's duty is    
laid down for him1 and the orders of the
 ,state are given greater permanence4   
,suidas says very aptly of ,anastasius  
that he turned the ,empire into an      
aristocracy by selling magisterial      
offices4  ,voltaire replies3 ,is it as a
 matter of civic virtue that in ,england
 a judge of the ,king's ,bench accepts  
his appointment8 7,it is either a matter
 of civic virtue or of profit and       
interest1 and if it is not profit1 it   
certainly must require considerable     
civic virtue47 ,what6 can we not find   
men in ,france willing to judge if we   

bestow their appointments upon them     
gratuitously8 7,we certainly can3 but   
they might be too grateful67 ,can the   
work of administering justice1 disposing
 of the lives and fortunes of men1      
become a family business8 7,well1 the   
business of bearing arms and disposing  
of men's lives and fortunes in civil war
 was in #agfj a family business4 ,so too
 the business of being king1 and you do 
not protest against that67 ,it is a pity
 that ,montesquieu should dishonour his 
work by such paradoxes1 but we must     
forgive him2 his uncle purchased a      
provincial magistrate's office and left 
it to him4 ,human nature comes in       
everywhere4 ,none of us is without      
weaknesses4  ,montesquieu thinks        
aristocratic bodies are good things4    
,voltaire is in favour of absolute      
power4 ,montesquieu would like the      
judicature to be a family office1 that  
is to say hereditary like the profession
 of a soldier2 this would make the      
judicial profession permanent like other

 professions4 ,he demonstrates1 as does 
,suidas1 that the purchase system       
creates an aristocracy4 ,voltaire1 like 
,napoleon ,i41 would make his soldiers1 
his priests1 and his judges1 king's men4
 ,they should all belong to the king1   
body and soul4  ,montesquieu had a      
greater antagonist than ,voltaire in    
,plato4 ,plato wrote in his ,republic1  
referring to all judicial offices3 ,it  
is as if on board ship a man were made a
 pilot for his wealth4 ,can it be that  
such a rule is bad in every other       
calling1 and good only in respect of the
 governing of a republic8  ,montesquieu 
answers ,plato 7and in anticipation     
,voltaire7 very wittily3 ,plato is      
speaking of a virtuous republic and ,i  
of a mere monarchy4 ,under a monarchy if
 offices were not sold by rule1 the     
poverty and greed of courtiers would    
sell them all the same1 and chance after
 all will give a better result than the 
choice of a prince4  ,to sum up1        
,montesquieu wants the magistracy to be 

partly hereditary1 and partly recruited 
from the wealthy classes1 an            
independent1 aristocratic body analogous
 to the army or the clergy1             
administering justice with that         
technical efficiency which university   
standards can guarantee1 and with the   
moral efficiency which is founded on    
independence1 dignity1 public spirit and
 impartiality4  ,i said above that      
venality1 or the system of purchase1 was
 not necessary to obtain these results4 
,the principle is this1 that the        
magistracy must be independent1 and to  
be independent it must have a           
proprietary right in its duties4 ,this  
can only be obtained if it hold its     
office by inheritance or purchase as was
 done under the ancien regime2 or1 if it
 were somehow contrived that magistrates
 should not be chosen by the            
,government4 ,the purchase or           
inheritance plan is not popular1 then   
the only alternative is that the        
magistrates should be chosen by some    

body other than the ,government4 ,by    
whom then8 ,the people8 ,then the judges
 would be dependent upon the people and 
the electors4  --,that would be better1 
or less bad4--  ,not at all4 ,if the    
judges were chosen by the electors1 they
 would be even less impartial than if   
they were elected by the ,government4   
,the judge then would think of nothing  
but of being re-elected4 ,he would      
always give judgment in favour of the   
party which had elected him4 ,would you 
care to be judged before a court        
composed of the deputies of your        
department8 ,certainly not1 if you      
belong to the weaker party4 ,yes1 if you
 belong to the majority1 but then only  
if you are certain that your adversary  
belongs to the minority1 or1 if he      
belong to your own party1 that he is a  
less influential elector than yourself4 
,to sum up1 there is no guarantee of    
impartiality if the judges are elected4 
,further1 if the system of electing     
judges by those liable to their         

jurisdiction were adopted1 there would  
be an extensive and1 ,i might add1 a    
most entertaining variety of justice4   
,judges1 who were elected by a blue or  
republican majority1 and who were       
anxious for re-election1 would always   
deliver judgment in favour of the blues4
 ,the same thing would happen in the    
white or royalists districts4 ,justice  
has her epochs1 ,pascal said ironically1
 and in this case justice would have her
 districts4 ,it would not be the same in
 the ,alpes-,maritimes as in the        
,cotes-du-,nord4 ,the ,court of ,appeal1
 if it attempted to be impartial1 would 
spend its time sending cases back from a
 blue district to be revised in a white1
 and the decisions delivered in a white 
country to be revised in a blue4 ,there 
would be judicial and legal anarchy4    
--,if the bench is not to be inherited1 
nor bought1 nor chosen by the           
,government1 nor elected by the people1 
by whom is it to be nominated8--  ,by   
itself2 ,i see no other solution4  ,for 

instance ,i can suggest one good method1
 though there may be several4 ,all the  
doctors of law in ,france could choose  
the judges of appeal and the judges of  
appeal could choose and promote all the 
judges4 ,this is an                     
aristocratic-democratic scheme on a very
 broad basis4  ,or else the judges alone
 might choose the judges of appeal1 and 
the judges of appeal might appoint and  
promote the judges4 ,that is an         
oligarchical method4  ,or again1 here is
 a plan for passing from the system that
 is1 to that which ought to be4 ,for the
 first time the doctors of law might    
choose the ,cour de ,cassation1 and it  
could choose the judges4 ,afterwards the
 judges could fill the vacancies in the 
,cour de ,cassation1 which would        
nominate and promote the judges4  ,the  
,government would still go on1 and      
continue to nominate the persons        
eligible to serve as magistrates4       
,under all these systems the judges     
would form an autonomous1 self-creative 

body1 dependent upon and responsible to 
themselves alone1 and by reason of their
 absolute independence1 strictly        
impartial4  --,but they would form a    
caste6--  ,they would form a caste4 ,i  
am sorry for it1 but it is the case4    
,you will never be well judged until you
 have a judicial caste1 which is neither
 the ,government1 nor the world at      
large4 ,for the ,government cannot judge
 properly when it is both judge and     
party to the suit4 ,further1 if it be   
litigious2 it will never be out of      
court4 ,again1 the world at large cannot
 judge properly1 because1 in practice1  
the world at large means the majority1  
and the majority is a party1 and by     
definition a party can hardly be        
impartial4  ,but democracy does not want
 to be judged by a caste4 ,in the first 
place because it abhors castes1 and     
secondly because it does not care about 
impartial justice4 ,do not exclaim at   
the paradox4 ,democracy does want to be 
judged impartially in little every-day  

cases1 but in all important cases in    
which a political question is involved  
and in which one of the majority is     
opposed to one of the minority1 the     
verdict then has to be for the stronger 
side4  ,it says to the judicial bench   
what a simple-minded deputy said to the 
,president of the ,chamber3 ,it is your 
duty to protect the majority4  ,this is 
why democracy clings to its official    
magistracy1 which contains some good    
elements though its members cannot      
always be impartial4 ,they were         
condemned by the mouth of one of their  
highest dignitaries who answered when   
questioned about some illegal           
proceeding3 ,there are reasons of high  
,state policy1 thus throwing both the   
law and the judges at the feet of the   
,government4 ,on another occasion1 with 
the very best intentions1 in order to   
put an end to an interminable affair1   
they turned and twisted the law and set 
a bad example2 for by not applying the  
law correctly1 they laid themselves open

 to endless and justifiable attacks upon
 their decision2 they did not procure   
the longed-for settlement1 and1 instead1
 left the matter open to interminable   
dispute4 ,they have knowledge1 good     
sense and intelligence1 but as their    
want of independence1 in other words    
their moral inefficiency1 neutralises   
their technical efficiency1 they do not 
and cannot possess authority4           
,democracy will inevitably go further   
along the road towards its ideal1 which 
is direct government4 ,it will want to  
elect the judges4  ,already it chooses  
them remotely in the third degree2 for  
it chooses the deputies who choose the  
,government1 which chooses the judges2  
and to some extent1 in the second       
degree1 for it chooses the deputies who 
bring pressure to bear upon the         
nomination of the judges and interfere  
with their promotion and their          
decisions4 ,this also is remote4  ,and1 
as by this constitution1 or1 rather by  
this practice1 recognition is given to  

the principle that it is the people who 
really appoints the judges through its  
intermediaries1 democracy1 always       
logical and matter of fact1 would like  
to see the principle applied without    
concealment1 and the people making the  
appointments directly4  ,then endless   
questions will arise about the best way 
of voting and electing4 ,if unipersonal 
ballot is adopted1 the canton will      
nominate its juge de paix1 the district 
its tribunal1 the region its ,court1 and
 the whole country the ,court of        
,appeal4 ,in this arrangement there will
 be the double drawback mentioned above2
 that is1 varying interpretations of    
justice according to districts1 and no  
impartiality4  ,if1 on the other hand1  
scrutin de liste is adopted1 the whole  
country will choose all the magistrates 
and they will belong to the majority4   
,in this case there would be uniformity 
of justice but no impartiality4 ,any    
intermediate system would combine the   
disadvantage of both plans4 ,for        

instance1 if nominations are made in    
each division1 all the magistrates in   
,brittany will be white partisans1 while
 in ,provence they will be blue         
partisans4 ,in both cases they will be  
biassed1 and such diversity as there is 
will be merely a diversity of partiality
 and bias4  ,we are talking of the      
future1 though not perhaps of a very    
distant one4 ,let us deal with the      
present4 ,the jury is still with us4    
,now the jury combines absolute moral   
competence with absolute technical      
incompetence4 ,democracy must always    
have incompetence in one form or        
another4 ,a jury is independent of      
everybody1 both of the ,government and  
of the people1 and in the best possible 
way1 because it is the agent of the     
people without being elected4 ,it does  
not seek re-election and is rather vexed
 than otherwise at being summoned to    
perform a disagreeable duty4 ,on the    
other hand it always vacillates between 
two emotions1 between pity and          

self-preservation1 between feelings of  
humanity and the necessity for social   
protection2 it is equally sensitive to  
the eloquence of the defending advocate1
 and the summing up of the prosecutor1  
and as these two influences balance each
 other it is in a perfect moral         
condition for delivering an equitable   
verdict4  ,for this reason the jury is  
of ancient origin1 and has always been  
an institution in the land4 ,at ,athens 
the tribunal of the ,heliasts formed a  
kind of jury1 too numerous indeed and   
more like a public meeting1 but still a 
sort of jury4  ,at ,rome1 a better      
regulated republic1 there were certain  
citizens chosen by the praetor who      
settled questions of fact1 that is to   
say1 decided whether an act had or had  
not been committed1 whether a sum of    
money had or had not been paid2 and the 
question of law was reserved for the    
centumvirs4  ,in ,england the jury still
 exists and has existed for centuries4  
,these various peoples have considered  

very properly that juries are           
excellently adapted for forming         
equitable decisions1 since they possess 
a greater moral competence for this     
particular function1 than is to be found
 elsewhere4  ,this is true2 but on the  
other hand a jury has no intelligence4  
,in ,november #aiji1 a jury in the ,cote
 d',or before whom a murderer was being 
tried1 declared 7#a7 that this man did  
not strike the blows1 7#b7 that the     
blows which he struck resulted in death4
 ,thereupon the man was acquitted1      
although his violence1 which never took 
place1 had a murderous result4  ,in the 
,steinheil case in the same month and   
year1 the jury's verdict involved 7#a7  
that no one had been assassinated in the
 ,steinheils' house1 and 7#b7 that ,mme 
,steinheil was not the daughter of ,mme 
,japy4 ,if a verdict were a judgment    
this would have put an end to all       
attempts to discover the assassins of   
,m4 ,steinheil and ,mme ,japy1 and on   
the other hand there would have been    

terrible social complications4  ,but the
 verdict of a jury is not a judgment4   
,why8 ,because the legislator foresaw   
the alarming absurdity of verdicts4 ,it 
is presumed in law that all juries'     
verdicts are absurd1 and experience     
proves that this is often the case4     
,juries' verdicts always seem to have   
been decided by lot like those of the   
famous judge in ,rabelais1 and it is    
proverbial at the law courts that it is 
impossible to foresee the issue of any  
case that comes before a jury4 ,it looks
 as if the jury reasoned thus3 ,i am a  
chance judge1 and it is only right that 
my judgment should be dictated by       
chance4  ,voltaire was in favour of the 
jury system1 principally because he had 
such a very low opinion of the          
magistrates of his day1 whom he used to 
compare to ,busiris4 ,but1 with his     
usual inconsequence1 he takes no pains  
to conceal the fact that the populations
 of ,abbeville and its neighbourhood    
were unanimously exasperated against ,la

 ,barre and ,d',etalonde1 and the people
 of ,toulouse against ,calas1 and all of
 them would have been condemned by      
juries summoned from those districts as 
surely as they were by the magisterial  
,busiris4  ,the jury system is nothing  
but a refined example of the cult of    
incompetence4 ,society1 having to defend
 itself against thieves and murderers1  
lays the duty of defending it on some of
 its citizens1 and arms them with the   
weapon of the law4 ,unfortunately it    
chooses for the purpose citizens who do 
not know how to use the weapon4 ,it then
 fondly imagines that it is adequately  
protected4 ,the jury is like an         
unskilled gladiator entangled in the    
meshes of his own net4  ,i need hardly  
say that democracy with its usual       
pertinacity is now trying to reduce the 
jury a step lower1 and draw it from the 
lower instead of the lower middle       
classes4 ,i see no harm in this myself1 
for in the matter of law the ignorance  
and inexperience of the lower middle    

class and the ignorance of the working  
class are much the same4 ,i have only   
mentioned it to show the tendency of    
democracy towards what is presumably    
greater incompetence4  ,now comes the   
turn of the juges de paix4 ,at present  
we still have juges de paix4 ,here we   
have a most interesting example of the  
way democracy strives after incompetence
 in matters judicial4  ,owing to the    
expense entailed by an appeal the       
jurisdiction of a juge de paix is very  
often final4 ,he ought to be an         
instructed person with some knowledge of
 law and jurisprudence4 ,he is therefore
 usually chosen from men who have a     
degree in law or from lawyers' clerks   
who have a certificate of ability4 ,to  
be quite honest this is but a feeble    
guarantee4  ,by the law of ,july #abth1 
#aije1 the ,french ,senate1 anxious to  
find men of still grosser incompetence1 
decided that juges de paix might be     
nominated from those1 who1 not having   
the required degree or certificate1 had 

occupied the posts of mayor1            
deputy-mayor or councillor for ten      
years4  ,the object of this decision was
 the very honest and legitimate one of  
giving senators and deputies the        
opportunity of rewarding the electoral  
services of the village mayors and their
 assistants4 ,and remember senators     
especially are nominated by these       
officials4 ,further it was an           
opportunity not to be missed for        
applying our principle--and our         
principle is this3 we ask1 where is     
absolute incompetence to be found1 for  
to him who can lay indisputable claim to
 it we must confide authority4  ,now    
mayors and their assistants answer this 
description exactly4 ,they must be able 
to sign their names1 but they are not   
obliged to know how to read1 and eighty 
per cent4 of them are totally           
illiterate4 ,their work is done for them
 very usually by the local schoolmaster4
 ,the ,senate1 therefore1 was quite sure
 of finding among them men absolutely   

incompetent for the post of juge de     
paix1 and it has found what it wanted4  
,incompetence so colossal deserved an   
appointment1 and an appointment has been
 given to it4  ,the magistrature and the
 powers that be1 seem to have been      
somewhat disturbed by certain           
consequences of this highly democratic  
institution4 ,m4 ,barthou1 the ,minister
 of ,justice1 complained bitterly of the
 work which this new institution caused 
him4 ,he made the following speech in   
the ,chamber of ,deputies3 ,we are here 
to tell each other the truth1 and1 with 
all the due moderation and prudence that
 is fitting1 ,i feel it my duty to warn 
the chamber against the results of the  
law of #aije4 ,at the present moment ,i 
am besieged with applications for the   
post of juge de paix4 ,i need hardly    
mention that there are some #i1jjj of   
them in my office1 because a certain    
number are not eligible for             
consideration1 but there are in round   
numbers #e1ejj applications which are   

recommended and examined4 7,what he     
means to say is1 that these are examined
 because they have been recommended1    
for1 as is only right1 those that are   
not backed by some political personage  
are not looked at47 ,as the average     
annual number of vacancies is a hundred 
and eighty1 you will readily see what a 
quandary ,i am in4 ,some of these       
applications are made with the most     
extraordinary persistency1 ,i might even
 call it ferocity1 and these invariably 
come from men who have held the office  
of mayor or deputy-mayor for ten years1 
often in the most insignificant places4 
,the ,minister of ,justice then read a  
report made on the subject by a         
procureur-general4  ,in this department 
there are forty-seven juges de paix1    
twenty of whom1 as ,i learn from an     
enquiry1 were mayors at the time of     
their appointment4 ,it is not to be     
wondered at that the number of          
provincial magnates who aspire to the   
post is on the increase1 for it seems to

 be generally recognised in this        
department that elective office         
irrespective of all professional        
aptitude is the normal means of access  
to a paid appointment1 more especially  
to that of juge de paix4 ,once they are 
appointed1 the mayors combine both their
 municipal and judicial duties1 and     
their interests lie far more in the     
commune which they administer than in   
the district in which they dispense     
justice and which1 without permission1  
they should never leave4 ,sometimes     
these district magistrates will go to   
any length to obtain moral support from 
the politicians of the neighbourhood4   
,they extort this as a sort of blackmail
 given in exchange for the electoral    
influence which they can bring to bear  
in their municipal capacity4 ,they      
attach far less importance to being     
quashed by the bench1 than to the       
eventual support of the deputy4 ,those  
who come into their courts are the      
unfortunate victims of these            

compromising arrangements which are     
giving the ,republican system a bad     
name4  ,i think the ,minister of        
,justice and his procureur-general have 
very little ground for these            
lamentations4 ,after all the minister   
only complains of having #i1jjj         
applications for office4 ,it would      
surely be quite easy for him1 in        
compliance with the generally recognised
 principle1 to choose those whose       
incompetence seems to be most thorough1 
or those who are most influentially     
supported1 according to the prevailing  
custom4  ,as for the procureur-general's
 sarcasms1 which he thinks so witty1    
they are quite delightfully diverting   
and ingenuous4 ,it seems to be generally
 recognised that elective office1       
irrespective of all professional        
aptitude1 is the normal means of access 
to a paid appointment4 ,what else does  
he expect8 ,it is eminently democratic  
that the marked absence of professional 
capacity should single a man out for    

employment4 ,that is the very spirit of 
democracy4 ,he surely does not think    
that a man is an elector by reason of   
his legislative and administrative      
capacity8  ,it is likewise essentially  
democratic that elective office should  
lead to paid appointments1 for the      
democratic theory is that all office1   
paid and unpaid1 should be elective4    
,why1 this procureur-general must be an 
aristocrat6  ,as for the mutual services
 rendered by the justice1 as mayor1 to  
the deputy1 and by the deputy to the    
justice1 this is democracy pure and     
simple4 ,the deputies distribute favours
 that they may be returned to power2 the
 influential electors put all their     
interest1 both personal and official1 at
 the service of the deputies in order to
 obtain those favours4 ,they are hand in
 glove with each other1 and form a solid
 union of interests4  ,what more does   
the procureur-general want8 ,does he    
want a different system8 ,if he wants   
another system1 whatever else it may be1

 it will not be democracy1 or at least  
it will not be a democratic democracy4  
,nor have ,i any idea what he means when
 he says the ,republican system will get
 a bad name4 ,the good name of the      
,republic depends upon its putting into 
practice every democratic principle2 and
 democratic principles have certainly   
never been more precisely realised than 
in the preceding example1 which ,i have 
had great pleasure in rescuing from     
oblivion and presenting to the notice of
 sociologists4     ,,chapter ,,viii4    
,,examples ,,of ,,incompetence4   ,i    
have already compared this1 our desire  
to worship incompetence1 to an          
infectious disease4 ,it has attacked the
 ,state at the very core1 in its        
constitution1 and it is not surprising  
that it is spreading rapidly to the     
customs and to the morals of the        
country4  ,the stage1 we know1 is an    
imitation of life4 ,life also1 to       
perhaps an even greater extent1 is an   
imitation of the stage4 ,similarly laws 

spring from morals1 and morals spring   
from law4 ,men are governed by many     
things1 said ,montesquieu1 by climate1  
religion1 laws1 precept1 example1 morals
 and manners1 which act and react upon  
each other and all combine to form a    
general temperament4  ,morals1 more     
often than not1 determine the nature of 
our laws1 particularly in a democracy1  
which is deplorable1 but ,montesquieu   
was right in saying3 ,morals take their 
colour from laws1 and manners from      
morals1 for laws certainly help to form 
morals1 manners and even national       
character4 ,for instance in ,rome under 
the ,empire the code of morals was to   
some extent the result of arbitrary     
power1 as to-day the moral character of 
the ,english is to some extent due to   
the laws and constitution of their      
country4  ,we know that by his laws     
,peter the ,great changed if not the    
character at least the manners and      
customs of his people4  ,custom is the  
offspring of law1 and morals are the    

offspring of custom4 ,national character
 is not really changed1 for character1  
,i believe1 is a thing incapable of     
change1 but it appears to be changed1   
and it certainly undergoes some         
modifications2 one set of tendencies is 
checked1 while others are encouraged4   
,the law abolishing the right of        
primogeniture has obviously affected    
national morals1 though it has not      
otherwise altered national character4   
,for a peculiar mental attitude is      
evolved by the constant domination of an
 elder brother1 whose birthright gives  
him precedence and authority second only
 to that of the father4 ,in countries   
where the right of unrestricted         
testamentary bequests is still          
maintained1 family morals are very      
different from those which obtain where 
the child is considered a joint         
proprietor of the patrimony4  ,since the
 passing of the law permitting divorce1 
a sad but necessary evil1 there have    
been far more applications for divorce  

than there ever were for separation4    
,can this be accounted for solely by the
 fact that formerly it seemed hardly    
worth while to take steps to obtain the 
qualified freedom of separation8 ,i     
think not4 ,for when a yoke is          
unbearable1 efforts to relax it would   
naturally be quite as strenuous and as  
unremitting as efforts to get rid of it 
altogether4  ,the truth is1 ,i think1   
that when both civil and ecclesiastical 
law agreed in prohibiting divorce1      
people held a different view of         
marriage2 it was looked upon as         
something sacred1 as a tie that it was  
shameful to break1 and that could not be
 broken except as a last resource and   
then almost under pain of death4 ,the   
law permitting divorce was what our     
forefathers would have called a legal   
indiscretion4 ,it has abolished the     
feeling of shame4 ,except where there is
 strong religious feeling1 there is now 
no scruple nor shame in seeking divorce4
 ,the old order has passed away2 modesty

 has been superseded by a desire for    
liberty1 or for another union4 ,this    
change has been brought about by a law  
which was the result of a new moral     
code2 but the law itself has helped to  
enlarge and expand the code4  ,thus     
democracy extends that love of          
incompetence which is its most imperious
 characteristic4 ,greek philosophers    
used to delight in imagining what       
morals1 especially domestic morals1     
would be like under a democracy4 ,they  
all vied with ,aristophanes4 ,one of    
,xenophon's characters says3 ,i am      
pleased with myself1 because ,i am poor4
 ,when ,i was rich ,i had to pay court  
to my calumniators1 who knew full well  
that they could harm me more than ,i    
could them4 ,then the ,republic was     
always imposing fresh taxes and ,i could
 not escape4 ,now that ,i am poor1 ,i am
 invested with authority2 no one        
threatens me4 ,i threaten others4 ,i am 
free to come and go as ,i choose4 ,the  
rich rise at my approach and give me    

place4 ,i was a slave1 now ,i am a king2
 ,i used to pay tribute1 now the ,state 
feeds me4 ,i no longer fear misfortunes1
 and ,i hope to acquire wealth4  ,plato 
too is quietly humorous at democracy's  
expense4 ,this form of government       
certainly seems the most beautiful of   
all1 and the great variety of types has 
an excellent effect4 ,at first sight    
does it not appear a privilege most     
delightful and convenient that we cannot
 be forced to accept any public office  
however eligible we may be1 that we need
 not submit to authority and that every 
one of us can become a judge or         
magistrate as our fancy dictates8 ,is   
there not something delightful in the   
benevolence shown to criminals8 ,have   
you ever noticed how1 in such a ,state  
as this1 men condemned to death or exile
 remain in the country and walk abroad  
with the demeanour of heroes8 ,see with 
what condescension and tolerance        
democrats despise the maxims which we   
have been brought up from childhood to  

revere and associate with the welfare of
 the ,republic4 ,we believe that unless 
a man is born virtuous1 he will never   
acquire virtue1 unless he has always    
lived in an environment of honesty and  
probity and given it his earnest        
attention4 ,see with what contempt      
democrats trample these doctrines under 
foot and never stop to ask what training
 a man has had for public office4 ,on   
the contrary1 anyone who merely         
professes zeal in the public interests  
is welcomed with open arms4 ,it is      
instantly assumed that he is quite      
disinterested4  ,these are only a few of
 the many advantages of democracy4 ,it  
is a pleasant form of government in     
which equality reigns among unequal as  
well as among equal things4 ,moreover1  
when a democratic ,state1 athirst for   
liberty1 is controlled by unprincipled  
cupbearers1 who give it to drink of the 
pure wine of liberty and allow it to    
drink till it is drunken1 then if its   
rulers do not show themselves           

complaisant and allow it to drink its   
fill1 they are accused and overthrown   
under the pretext that they are traitors
 aspiring to an oligarchy2 for the      
people prides itself on and loves the   
equality that confuses and will not     
distinguish between those who should    
rule and those who should obey4 ,is it  
any wonder that the spirit of licence1  
insubordination1 and anarchy should     
invade everything1 even the institution 
of the family8 ,fathers learn to treat  
their children as equals and are half   
afraid of them1 while children neither  
fear nor respect their parents4 ,all the
 citizens and residents and even        
strangers aspire to equal rights of     
citizenship4  ,masters stand in awe of  
their disciples and treat them with the 
greatest consideration and are jeered at
 for their pains4 ,young men want to be 
on the same terms as their elders and   
betters1 and old men ape the manners of 
the young1 for fear of being thought    
morose and dictatorial4 ,observe too to 

what lengths of liberty and equality the
 relations between the sexes are        
carried4 ,you would hardly believe how  
much freer domestic animals are there   
than elsewhere4 ,it is proverbial that  
little lap-dogs are on the same footing 
as their mistresses1 or as horses and   
asses2 they walk about with their noses 
in the air and get out of nobody's way4 
,aristotle1 faithless at this point to  
his favourite method of always          
contradicting ,plato1 has no particular 
liking1 as we have said1 for democracy4 
,he does not spare it though he does not
 imitate ,plato's scathing sarcasm4  ,in
 the first place1 ,aristotle is frankly 
in favour of slavery1 as was every      
ancient philosopher except perhaps      
,seneca2 but he is more insistent on    
this point than anyone else1 for he     
looks upon slavery1 not as one of many  
foundations1 but as the very foundation 
of society4  ,he considers artisans as  
belonging to a higher estate but still  
as a class of half-slaves4 ,he asserts  

as an historical fact that only extreme 
and decadent democracies gave them      
rights of citizenship1 and theoretically
 he maintains that no sound government  
would give them the franchise of the    
city4 ,hence in ancient times1 and among
 some nations1 the working classes had  
no share in the government--a privilege 
which they only acquired under the      
extreme democracy4444 ,doubtless in     
ancient times and among some nations the
 artisan class were slaves or           
foreigners1 and therefore the majority  
of them are so now4 ,the best form of   
,state will not admit them to           
citizenship4444  ,he admits that        
democracy may be considered as a form of
 government 7444 if democracy be a real 
form of government444471 and he admits  
too that 444 multitudes1 of which each  
individual is but an ordinary person1   
when they meet together1 may very likely
 be better than the few good1 if        
regarded not individually but           
collectively4444 ,hence the many are    

better judges than a single man of music
 and poetry2 for some understand one    
part1 and some another1 and among them  
they understand the whole4 ,observe that
 he is still speaking of a democracy in 
which slaves and artisans are not       
citizens4 ,doubtless too democracy is   
the most tolerable of perverted         
governments1 and ,plato has already made
 these distinctions1 but his point of   
view is not the same as mine4 ,for he   
lays down the principle that of all good
 constitutions democracy is the worst1  
but the best of bad ones4 ,but still    
,aristotle cannot help thinking that    
democracy is a sociological mistake 444 
,it must be admitted that we cannot     
raise to the rank of citizens all those1
 even the most useful1 who are necessary
 to the existence of the ,state4        
,democracy has this drawback that it    
cannot constitutionally retain within   
itself and encourage eminent men4 ,in a 
democracy if there be some one person or
 more than one1 although not enough to  

make up the whole complement of a       
,state1 whose virtue is so pre-eminent  
that the virtues or the capacity of all 
the rest admit of no comparison with his
 or theirs1 he or they can be no longer 
regarded as part of a ,state2 for       
justice will not be done to the         
superior1 if he is reckoned only as the 
equal of those who are so far inferior  
to him in virtue and in political       
capacity4 ,such an one may truly be     
deemed a ,god among men4 ,hence we see  
that legislation is necessarily         
concerned only with those who are equal 
in birth and in power2 and that for men 
of pre-eminent virtue there is no       
law--they are themselves a law4 ,anyone 
would be ridiculous who attempted to    
make laws for them3 they would probably 
retort what1 in the fable of            
,antisthenes1 the lions said to the     
hares--'where are your claws8'--when in 
the council of the beasts the latter    
began haranguing and claiming equality  
for all4 ,and for this reason democratic

 ,states have instituted ostracism2     
equality is above all things their aim1 
and therefore they ostracise and banish 
from the city for a time those who seem 
to predominate too much through their   
wealth1 or the number of their friends1 
or through any other political          
influence4 ,mythology tells us that the 
,argonauts left ,heracles behind for a  
similar reason2 the ship ,argo would not
 take him because she feared that he    
would have been too much for the rest of
 the crew4  ,thrasybulus1 the tyrant of 
,miletus1 asked ,periander1 the tyrant  
of ,corinth1 one of the seven sages of  
,greece1 for advice on the art of       
government4 ,periander made no reply but
 proceeded to bring a field of corn to a
 level by cutting off the tallest ears4 
,this is a policy not only expedient for
 tyrants or in practice confined to     
them1 but equally necessary in          
oligarchies and democracies4 ,ostracism 
is a measure of the same kind1 which    
acts by disabling and banishing the most

 prominent citizens4  ,this is what we  
may call a constitutional necessity for 
the democracy4  ,to be quite honest1 it 
is not always obliged to cut off the    
ears of corn4 ,it has a simpler method4 
,it can systematically prevent any man  
who betrays any superiority whatsoever1 
either of birth1 fortune1 virtue or     
talent1 from obtaining any authority or 
social responsibility4 ,it can send to  
,coventry4 ,i have often pointed out    
that under the first democracy ,louis   
,,xvi was guillotined for having wished 
to leave the country1 while under the   
third democracy his great-nephews were  
exiled for wishing to remain in it4     
,ostracism is1 in these instances1 still
 feeling its way1 and its action is     
contradictory because it has not made up
 its mind4 ,this will continue till it  
has been reduced to a science1 when it  
will contrive to level1 by one method or
 another1 every individual eminence1    
great and small1 that dares to vary by  
the merest fraction from the regulation 

standards4 ,this is ostracism1 and      
ostracism1 so to speak1 is a            
physiological organ of democracy4       
,democracy by using it mutilates the    
nation1 without it democracy would      
mutilate itself4  ,aristotle often tries
 to solve the problem of the eminent    
man4 ,good men1 he says1 differ from any
 individual of the many1 as the         
beautiful are said to differ from those 
who are not beautiful1 and works of art 
from realities1 because in them the     
scattered elements are combined4444     
,whether this principle can apply to    
every democracy and to all bodies of men
 is not clear4444 ,but there may be     
bodies of men about whom our statement  
is nevertheless true4 ,and if so1 the   
difficulty which has been already       
raised--viz41 what power should be      
assigned to the mass of freemen and     
citizens--is solved4 ,there is still a  
danger in allowing them to share the    
great offices of ,state1 for their folly
 will lead them into error and their    

dishonesty into crime4 ,but there is a  
danger also in not letting them share1  
for a ,state in which many poor men are 
excluded from office will necessarily be
 full of enemies4 ,the only way of      
escape is to assign to them some        
deliberative and judicial functions4444 
,but each individual left to himself1   
forms an imperfect judgment4  ,it is not
 only the eminent man that is the thorn 
in the flesh of democracies1 but every  
form of superiority1 whether individual 
or collective1 which exists outside the 
,state and the ,government4  ,if we     
recollect that ,aristotle coupled       
extreme democracy with tyranny1 it will 
be interesting to recall his summary of 
the ancient prescriptions for the       
preservation of a tyranny4444 ,the      
tyrant should lop off those who are too 
high2 he must put to death men of       
spirit3 he must not allow common meals1 
clubs1 education and the like2 he must  
be upon his guard against anything which
 is likely to inspire either courage or 

confidence among his subjects2 he must  
prohibit literary assemblies or other   
meetings for discussion1 and he must    
take every means to prevent people from 
knowing one another 7for acquaintance   
begets mutual confidence74 ,aristotle's 
conclusions are subjectively            
aristocratic3 ,in the perfect ,state    
there would be great doubts about the   
use of ostracism1 not when applied to   
excess in strength1 wealth1 popularity  
or the like1 but when used against some 
one who is pre-eminent in virtue4 ,what 
is to be done with him8 ,mankind will   
not say that such an one is to be       
expelled and exiled2 on the other hand  
he ought not to be a subject1 that would
 be as if men should claim to rule over 
,zeus on the principle of rotation of   
office4 ,the only alternative is that   
all should joyfully obey such a rule1   
according to what seems to be the order 
of nature1 and that men like him should 
be kings in their ,state for life4 ,but 
when he speaks objectively1 ,aristotle  

comes to another conclusion1 which we   
shall have occasion to mention later on4
  ,among moderns1 ,rousseau declared    
that he was not a democrat1 and he was  
right1 because by democracy he meant the
 ,athenian system of direct government1 
of which he did not for an instant      
approve4 ,in the ,social ,contract he   
has drawn up a most detailed scheme1    
which1 in spite of some contradictions  
and obscure passages1 is an exact       
description of democracy as we          
understand the word2 but still we cannot
 tell if he is actually a democrat1     
because we do not know what he means by 
citizens1 whether he means everybody or 
only one class1 though that a numerous  
one4 ,rousseau has written more fully   
than anyone else1 not so much of the    
influence of democracy on morals1 as of 
the coincidence between democracy and   
good morals4 ,equality1 frugality and   
simplicity can all be found1 according  
to ,rousseau1 in ,states where there is 
neither royalty nor aristocracy nor     

plutocracy4 ,as ,i understand it1 his   
meaning is that the same virtue which   
makes certain nations love equality1    
frugality and simplicity is also        
productive of a form of government which
 excludes aristocracy1 plutocracy and   
royalty4 ,if you have simplicity1       
frugality and equality1 you will        
probably live in a republic that is     
democratic or virtually democratic4     
,this is1 ,i think1 the clearest and    
most impartial summary that we can make 
of ,rousseau's doctrine1 which1 though  
set forth in rigid formulae1 is still   
extremely vague4  ,in this he is a far  
more faithful follower of ,montesquieu  
than he will allow4 ,all that ,i have   
quoted is to be found literally in      
,montesquieu's chapters on democracy4   
,even his famous saying1 the ruling     
principle of democracy is virtue1 means1
 when he uses it in one sense1 no more  
than that it is the synthesis of these  
three perfections1 equality1 simplicity 
and frugality4 ,for ,montesquieu        

sometimes uses virtue in a narrow1 and  
sometimes in a broad sense1 sometimes in
 the sense of political and civic virtue
 or patriotism1 sometimes in the sense  
of virtue properly speaking 7simplicity1
 frugality1 thrift1 equality74 ,in this 
latter case he and ,rousseau are        
absolutely agreed4  ,montesquieu only   
considers democracy in decadence1 as his
 custom is in respect of other forms of 
government1 and though he does not      
actually cite ,plato1 he really gives   
the substance of what we have already   
quoted4 ,when the people wishes to do   
the work of the magistrates1 the dignity
 of the office disappears and when the  
deliberations of the ,senate carry no   
weight1 neither senators nor old men are
 treated with respect4 ,when old men do 
not receive respect1 fathers cannot     
expect it from their children1 husbands 
from their wives1 nor masters from their
 men4 ,at length everyone will learn to 
rejoice in this untrammelled liberty1   
and will grow as weary of commanding as 

of obeying4 ,women1 children and slaves 
will submit to no authority4 ,there will
 be an end of morals1 no more love of   
order1 no more virtue4  ,now as to this 
transition1 this passage from the public
 morals of a democracy to the private1  
domestic1 personal morals which exist   
under that form of government1 have you 
observed what is the common root of our 
failings both public and private8 ,the  
common root of both is misunderstanding1
 forgetfulness and contempt of          
competence4 ,if pupils despise their    
masters1 young men despise old men1 if  
wives do not respect their husbands and 
the unenfranchised do not respect the   
citizens1 if the condemned do not stand 
in awe of their judges1 nor sons in awe 
of their parents1 the principle of      
efficiency has vanished4 ,pupils no     
longer admit the scientific superiority 
of their teachers1 young men have no    
regard for the experience of the old1   
women will not recognise the supremacy  
of their husbands in practical matters1 

the unenfranchised have no sense of the 
superiority of the citizens from the    
point of view of national tradition1 the
 condemned do not feel the moral        
supremacy of their judges1 and sons do  
not realise the scientific1 practical1  
civic and moral superiority of their    
fathers4  ,indeed1 why should they8 ,how
 could we expect these feelings to be of
 anything but the most transient        
description since the ,state itself is  
organised on a basis of contempt for    
competence1 or of what is even worse1 a 
reverence for incompetence1 and an      
insatiable craving for the guidance and 
government of the incompetent8  ,thus   
public morals have a great influence on 
private morals2 and gradually into      
family and social life there comes that 
laxity in the daily relations of the    
citizens which ,plato has wittily       
termed1 equality between things that are
 equal and those that are not4  ,the    
first innovation which democracy brings 
into family life is the equality of the 

sexes1 and this is followed by woman's  
disrespect for man4 ,this idea1 be it   
admitted1 is substantially correct1 it  
only ceases to be true when it is viewed
 relatively to the varying competences  
of the two sexes4 ,woman is man's equal 
in cerebral capacity1 and in civilised  
societies1 where intellect is the only  
thing that matters1 the woman is the    
equal of the man4 ,she should be        
admitted to the same employments as men 
in society1 and under the same          
conditions of capacity and education1   
but in family life the same rules should
 apply as in every other enterprise2    
7#a7 division of labour according to the
 competence of each2 7#b7 recognition of
 a leader according to the competence of
 each4 ,this is the law which women are 
constantly led to misunderstand in a    
democracy4 ,they will not admit the     
principle of the division of labour     
either in the world at large or in the  
domestic circle4 ,they try to encroach  
upon men's work1 which perhaps they     

might do very successfully1 if they were
 obliged to do it and had nothing else  
at all to do2 but which they really     
spoil by undertaking when they have     
other obvious duties to perform4 ,they  
will not admit that men should be at the
 head of affairs2 they aspire to be not 
only partners but managing directors4   
,this implies a contemptuous rejection  
of that form of social competence which 
comes from the acceptance of convention 
or contract4 ,no doubt a woman would be 
just as good a tax-collector as her     
husband1 but since they have entered    
into partnership1 the one to administer 
the collection of taxes1 the other to   
look after the house1 it is just as bad 
for the one whose business it is to keep
 house to begin collecting taxes1 as it 
is for the tax-collector to interfere   
with the housekeeping4 ,it is necessary 
to respect the efficiency that arises   
out of the observance of convention and 
contract4 ,this1 with practice and      
experience1 will quickly become a very  

real and a very valuable efficiency1 but
 if thwarted from outside will lead to  
friction1 insecurity and                
disorganisation4  ,it is particularly by
 their contempt1 which they are at no   
pains to disguise1 for the competence   
that comes from contract and later from 
habit1 by their refusal to recognise the
 position of the head of the family1    
that women every day and in every minute
 particular are training their children 
to despise their father4 ,democracy     
seems bent on bringing up its children  
to despise their parents4 ,no other     
construction can be put upon the facts1 
however good and innocent the motives4  
,just sum up the facts4 ,in the first   
place democracy denies that the living  
can be guided by the dead2 it is one of 
its fundamental axioms that no          
generation should be tied and bound by  
its predecessor4 ,what inference can    
children be expected to draw from this  
except that they owe no obedience to    
their father and mother8  ,children have

 naturally only too great a tendency to 
look down on their parents4 ,they are   
proud of their physical superiority2    
they know that their star is rising     
while that of their parents is setting4 
,they are imbued with the universal     
prejudice of modern humanity that       
progress is constant and that therefore 
whatever is of yesterday is ex hypothesi
 inferior to that which is of to-day4   
,they are driven also1 as ,i am         
constrained to believe1 by a sort of    
,nemesis inspired by fear lest human    
science and power should hurry forward  
too fast if the children were content to
 pick up the burden of life where their 
parents left it1 and simply followed    
their fathers and did not insist on     
effacing all that their fathers had done
 and beginning again--with the result   
that the edifice never rises far above  
its foundations1 and that children for  
this and other reasons have a natural   
inclination to treat their parents as   
,cassandras4 ,then1 as it were to clench

 the argument1 democracy is ready with  
its teaching that each generation is    
independent of the other1 and that the  
dead have no lesson to impart to the    
living4  ,in the second place1          
democracy1 applying the principle still 
further and proclaiming the doctrine    
that the ,state is master of all1       
withdraws the child from the family1 as 
often and as completely as it can4      
,democracy1 said ,socrates1 in one of   
his humorous dialogues1 is a mountebank1
 a kidnapper of children4 ,it snatches  
the child from its family while he is   
playing1 takes him far away1 allows him 
no more to see his family1 teaches him  
many strange languages1 drills him till 
his joints are supple1 paints his face  
and dresses him in ridiculous clothes1  
and imparts to him all the mysteries of 
the acrobat's trade until he is         
sufficiently dexterous to appear in     
public and amuse the company by his     
tricks4  ,at all events democracy is    
determined to take the child away from  

his family1 to give him the education   
which it has chosen and not that which  
the parents have chosen1 and to teach   
him that he must not believe what his   
parents teach him4 ,it denies the       
competence of parents to rear their     
children and puts forward its own       
competence1 asserting that it is only   
its own that has any value4  ,this is   
one of the principal causes of the      
divisions between fathers and children  
in a democracy4  ,you may retort that   
democracy does not always succeed in its
 efforts to separate children from their
 parents1 because there is nothing to   
prevent the children extending the      
contempt1 which for such excellent      
reasons they have been taught to        
entertain for their parents1 to their   
,state-appointed teachers4  ,this is a  
most pertinent observation1 for the     
general maxims of democracy are just as 
likely to make pupils despise their     
masters as to make sons despise their   
fathers4 ,the master1 too1 represents in

 the eyes of his pupil that past which  
has no connection with the present and  
which by the law of progress is very    
inferior to the present4 ,this is true2 
but the end of all is that between the  
school which counteracts the influence  
of the parents and the home which       
counteracts the influence of the school1
 the child becomes a personage who is   
never educated at all4 ,he is in like   
case with a child who in the family     
itself receives lessons1 and what is    
more important1 example1 from a mother  
who is religious and from a father who  
is an atheist4 ,he is not educated1 he  
has had no sort of education4 ,the only 
real education1 that is to say1 the only
 transmission to the children of the    
ideas of their parents consists of an   
education at home which is reinforced by
 the instruction of masters chosen by   
the parents in accordance with their own
 views4 ,this is precisely the form of  
education to which democracy refuses to 
be reconciled4                 99       

99       99       99       99  ,there is
 a still more cogent reason why old men 
are neither respected nor honoured in a 
democracy4 ,here is yet another         
efficiency formally denied and formally 
set aside4 ,an interesting treatise     
might be written on the rise and fall of
 old men4 ,civilization has not been    
kind to them4 ,in primitive times1 as   
among savage races to-day1 old men were 
kings4 ,gerontocracy1 that is1          
government by the aged1 is the most     
ancient form of government4 ,it is easy 
to understand why this should be4 ,in   
primitive ages1 all knowledge was       
experience and the old men possessed all
 the historical1 social and political   
experience of the ,state4 ,they were    
held in great honour and listened to    
with the profoundest respect and        
veneration1 in fact with an almost      
superstitious reverence4 ,nietzsche was 
thinking of those days when he said3    
,respect for the aged is the symbol of  
aristocracy1 and when he added3 ,respect

 for the aged is respect for tradition1 
he was thinking of the reason for this  
assumption4 ,that the dead should rule  
the living was accepted instinctively1  
and it was their nearness to death which
 evoked honour for the aged4  ,at a     
later stage the old man shared in the   
civil government with monarchy1         
aristocracy or oligarchy1 and retained  
an almost complete control of judicial  
affairs4 ,his moral and technical       
efficiency were still appreciated4 ,his 
moral efficiency to his contemporaries  
consisted in the fact that his passions 
were deadened and his judgment as       
disinterested as was humanly possible4  
,even his obstinacy is rather an        
advantage than otherwise4 ,he is not    
liable to whims and fancies and sudden  
gusts of temper or to external          
influence4 ,his technical efficiency is 
considerable1 because he has seen and   
remembered much and his mind has        
unconsciously drawn up a reference book 
of cases4 ,as history repeats itself    

with very slight alterations1 every     
fresh case which arises is already well 
known to him2 it does not take him by   
surprise and he has a solution at hand  
which only requires very slight         
modification4  ,all this1 however1 is   
very ancient history4 ,that which       
undermined the authority of old men was 
the book4 ,books contain all science1   
equity1 jurisprudence and history       
better1 it must be confessed1 than the  
memories of old men4 ,one fine day the  
young men said3 ,the old men were our   
books2 now that we have books we have no
 further need for old men4  ,this was a 
mistake2 the knowledge which is         
accumulated in books can never be       
anything but the handmaiden of living   
science1 the science which is being     
constantly remodelled and corrected by  
living thought4 ,a book is a wise man   
paralysed2 the wise man is a book which 
still thinks and writes4  ,these ideas  
did not hold2 the book superseded the   
old man1 and the old man no longer was a

 library to the nation4  ,later still1  
for various reasons1 the old men drifted
 from a position of respect to one of   
ridicule4 ,undoubtedly they lend        
themselves to this2 they are obstinate1 
foolish1 prosy1 boring1 crotchety and   
unpleasant to look upon4 ,comic writers 
poked fun at these failings which are   
only too self-evident and showered      
ridicule upon them4 ,then as the        
majority of audiences is composed of    
young men1 first of all because there   
are more young men than old1 and        
secondly because old men do not often go
 to the theatre1 authors of comic plays 
were certain of raising a laugh by      
turning old men into ridicule1 or rather
 by exposing only their ridiculous      
characteristics4  ,at ,athens and at    
,rome and probably elsewhere1 the old   
man was one of the principal grotesque  
characters4 ,these things1 as ,rousseau 
pointed out1 have a great effect upon   
morals4 ,once the old man became a      
recognised traditional stage-butt1 his  

social authority had come to an end4 ,in
 the de ,senectute it is obvious that   
,cicero is running counter to the stream
 in seeking to restore to favour a      
character about whom the public is      
indifferent and for whom all he can do  
is to plead extenuating circumstances4  
,it is a remarkable fact that even in   
mediaeval epics1 ,charlemagne himself1  
the emperor of the flowing beard1 often 
plays a comic part4 ,the epic is invaded
 by the atmosphere of the fable4        
,during the ,renaissance1 the           
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries1   
the old man is generally1 though not    
invariably1 held up to ridicule4        
,moliere takes his lead from            
,aristophanes and ,plautus rather than  
from ,terence and is the scourge of old 
age as well as the scourge of the       
ridiculous2 he pursues the old as a     
hound his prey and never leaves them in 
peace either in his poetry or his prose4
  ,we must do this much justice to      
,rousseau that both he and his child1   

the ,revolution1 tried to restore the   
old man to his former glory2 he makes   
honourable mention of him in his        
writings1 and she gives him important   
posts in public ceremonies and national 
fetes4 ,therein were received the       
ancient memories of ,lacedaemon and of  
early ,rome1 combined with a form of    
reaction against the days of ,louis     
,,xiv and ,louis ,,xv4  ,but with the   
triumph of democracy the old man was    
finally banished to the limbo of        
discredited things4 ,montesquieu's      
advice was quite forgotten 7see the     
context ,laws1 v1 #h74 ,he said that in 
a democracy nothing kept the standard of
 morals so high as that young men should
 venerate the old4 ,both profit by it1  
the young because they respect the old1 
and the old because they are confirmed  
in their respect for themselves 7for the
 respect of the young is an assistance  
to the self-respect of the aged74       
,democracy has forgotten this advice1   
because it no longer believes in        

tradition and believes too much in      
progress4 ,old men are the natural      
upholders of tradition1 and we must     
confess that an enthusiastic faith in   
the value of what we call progress is   
not commonly their failing4 ,for this   
very reason their influence would be a  
most wholesome corrective to the system1
 or rather to the attitude of mind1     
which despises the past and sees in     
every change a step in the path of      
progress4 ,but democracy will not allow 
that it needs a corrective1 and the old 
man1 to it1 is only an enemy4 ,the old  
man upholds tradition and has no        
enthusiasm for progress1 but beyond this
 he appeals for respect1 first for      
himself1 then for religion1 for glory1  
for his country and for the history of  
his nation4 ,democracy is indifferent to
 the sentiment of respect1 or rather it 
lives in constant fear that the         
sentiment may be applied elsewhere4     
,then what does democracy want for      
itself8  ,not respect1 but adoration1   

passion1 devotion4 ,we all like to see  
our own sentiments as to ourselves      
repeated in the minds of others4 ,the   
crowd never respects1 it loves1 it      
yields to passion1 enthusiasm1          
fanaticism4 ,it never respects even that
 which it loves4  ,it is quite natural  
that the masses should not care for old 
men4 ,the masses are young4 ,how aptly  
does ,horace's description of the young 
man apply to the people6     ,imberbis  
juvenis1 tandem custode remoto   ,gaudet
 equis1 canibusque et aprici gramine    
campi2   ,cereus in vitium flecti1      
monitoribus asper1   ,utilium tardus    
provisor1 prodigus aeris1   ,sublimis1  
cupidusque et amata relinquere pernix4  
,once free from the control of his      
tutors1 the young man thinks of nothing 
but horses1 dogs and the ,campus        
,martius1 impressionable as wax to every
 temptation1 impatient of correction1   
unthrifty1 extravagant1 presumptuous and
 light of love4  ,at all events respect 
has no meaning for the crowd1 and when  

it rules1 we cannot from its example    
learn the lessons of respect4 ,democracy
 has no love for the old2 and it is     
interesting to note that the word       
gerontocracy to which the ancients      
attached the most honourable meaning is 
now only a term of ridicule1 and is     
applied only to a government which1     
because it is in the hands of old men1  
is therefore grotesque4                 
99       99       99       99       99  
,this disappearance of respect1 noted as
 we have seen by ,plato1 ,aristotle and 
,montesquieu as a morbid system1 is1    
regard it how we will1 a fact of the    
gravest import4 ,kant has asked the     
question1 what must we obey8 ,what      
criterion is there to tell us what to   
obey8 ,what is there within us which    
commands respect1 which does not ask for
 love or fear1 but for respect alone8   
,he has given us the answer4 ,the       
feeling of respect is the only thing    
that we can trust1 and that will never  
fail us4  ,in society the only feelings 

we obey are those which win our respect1
 and the men to whom we listen1 and whom
 we honour1 are those who inspire       
respect4 ,this is the only criterion    
which enables us to gauge correctly the 
men and things to whom we owe1 if not   
absolute obedience1 at least attention  
and deference4 ,old men are the nation's
 conscience1 and it is a conscience at  
times severe1 morose1 tiresome1         
obstinate1 over-scrupulous1 dictatorial1
 and it repeats for ever the same old   
saws2 in other words a conscience2 but  
conscience it is4  ,the comparison might
 be carried further with results that   
would be advantageous as well as        
curious4 ,we degrade and finally vitiate
 our conscience if we do not respect its
 behests4 ,conscience then itself       
becomes small and timid and humble1     
shamefaced1 and at length a mere        
whisper4 ,absolutely silent it can never
 be made4  ,it becomes sophisticated1 it
 begins to employ the language of       
passion1 not of the vilest passions of  

our nature1 but still the voice of      
passion2 it ceases to use the categoric 
imperative and tries to be persuasive4  
,it no longer raises the finger of      
command1 but it seeks to cajole with    
caressing hand4  ,then it falls still   
lower1 it affects indifference and      
scepticism and it puts on the air of the
 trifler in order to insinuate a word of
 wisdom into the seductive talk that is 
heard around it1 and it holds language  
somewhat as follows3 ,probably          
everything has its good points and there
 is something to be said for both vice  
and virtue1 crime and honesty1 sin and  
innocence1 rudeness and politeness1     
licence and purity4 ,these are all      
simply different forms of an activity   
which cannot be wholly wrong in any of  
its manifestations2 and it is precisely 
because every one of these has its value
 that there may be nothing to lose in   
being honest1 nay1 perhaps something to 
gain4  ,nevertheless1 a nation that does
 not respect its old men changes their  

nature and despoils them of their beauty
 and integrity4 ,how true is            
,montesquieu's saying that the respect  
paid them by the young helps old men to 
respect themselves6 ,old men who are not
 respected take no interest in their    
natural duties2 they cease to advise1 or
 else they only venture to advise       
indirectly1 as though they were         
apologising for their wisdom1 or they   
affect a laxity of morals to enable them
 to insinuate a surreptitious dose of   
worldly wisdom2--and worst of all in    
view of the insignificant part assigned 
to them in society1 old men will        
nowadays decline to be old4             
,,chapter ,,ix4  ,,manners4   ,if the   
worship of incompetence reverberates    
with a jarring note through our domestic
 morals1 it has an effect hardly less   
harmful on the social relations of men  
in the wider theatre of public life4 ,we
 often ask why politeness is out of     
date1 and everyone replies with a smile3
 ,this is democratic4 ,so it is1 but why

 should it be8 ,montesquieu remarks that
 to cast off the conventions of civility
 is to seek a method for putting our    
faults at their ease4 ,he adds the      
rather subtle distinction that          
politeness flatters the vices of others1
 and civility prevents us from          
displaying our own4 ,it is a barrier    
raised by men to prevent them from      
corrupting each other4 ,that which      
flatters vice can hardly be called      
politeness1 but is rather adulation4    
,civility and politeness are only       
slightly different in degree2 civility  
is cold and very respectful1 politeness 
has a suggestion of flattery4 ,it       
graciously draws into evidence the good 
qualities of our neighbour1 not his     
failings1 much less his vices4  ,there  
is no doubt that civility and politeness
 are a delicate means of showing respect
 to our fellow-men1 and of communicating
 a wish to be respected in turn4 ,these 
things then are barriers1 but barriers  
from which we derive support1 which     

separate and strengthen us1 but which1  
though holding us apart1 do not keep us 
estranged from our neighbours4  ,it is  
also very true that if we release       
ourselves from these rules1 whether they
 are civility or politeness1 we set our 
faults at liberty4 ,the basis of        
civility and politeness is respect for  
others and respect for ourselves4 ,as   
,abbe ,barthelemy has very justly       
remarked3 ,in the first class of        
citizens is to be found a spirit of     
decorum which makes it evident that men 
respect themselves1 and a spirit of     
politeness which makes it evident that  
they also respect others4 ,this is what 
,pascal meant by saying that respect is 
our own inconvenience1 and he explains  
it thus1 that to stand when our         
neighbour is seated1 to remove our hat  
when he is covered1 though trifling acts
 of courtesy1 are tokens of the efforts 
we would willingly make on his behalf if
 an opportunity of being really         
serviceable to him presented itself4    

,politeness is a mark of respect and a  
promise of devotion4  ,all this is      
anti-democratic1 because democracy does 
not recognise any superiority1 and      
therefore has no sympathy with respect  
and personal devotion4 ,respect to      
others involves a recognition from us   
that we are of less importance than     
they1 and politeness to an equal        
requires from us a courteous affectation
 that we consider him as our superior4  
,this is entirely contrary to the       
democratic ideal1 which asserts that    
there is no superiority anywhere4 ,as   
for pretending to treat your equal as   
though he were your superior1 that      
involves a double hypocrisy1 because it 
requires a reciprocal hypocrisy on the  
part of your neighbour4 ,you praise his 
wit1 only in order that he may return   
the compliment4  ,without1 however1     
insisting on this point1 democracy will 
argue that politeness is to be          
deprecated1 because it not only         
recognises but actually creates         

superiority4 ,it treats an equal as a   
superior1 as though there were not      
enough discrepancies already without    
inventing any more4 ,it seems to imply  
that if inequality did not exist1 it    
would be necessary to invent it4 ,it is 
tantamount to proclaiming that there    
cannot be too much aristocracy4 ,that is
 an opinion which democracy cannot      
endure4  ,considered as a promise of    
future devotion1 politeness is equally  
anti-democratic4 ,the citizen owes no   
devotion to any person1 he owes it only 
to the community4 ,it is no small matter
 to style yourself your most humble     
servant2 it means that you single out   
one man from among many others and      
promise to serve him2 it means that you 
acknowledge in him some natural or      
social superiority1 and according to    
democracy there are no superiorities1   
social or natural1 and if there were    
such a thing as natural superiority1    
nature has no business to allow it4     
,this is tantamount to proclaiming a    

form of vassalage--a thing which is not 
to be tolerated4  ,as to the absence of 
politeness considered as a means of     
giving free play to one's feelings1 we  
recognise that in one sense this also is
 essentially democratic4 ,the democrat  
is not proud of or pleased with his     
faults2 not at all2 only ex hypothesi he
 does not believe in their existence4 ,a
 failing is an inferiority of one man in
 relation to another2 the word itself   
implies it2 it means that something is  
lacking1 that one man has a thing which 
another has not4 ,but all men are equal1
 therefore1 argues the democrat1 ,i have
 no failing2 therefore ,i need not try  
to conceal and control my alleged       
failings1 as they are at worst merely   
mannerisms1 and are possibly virtues4   
,the democrat1 in fact1 like young men1 
like most women1 and like all human     
beings who have begun to think but do   
not think very profoundly1 knows his    
failings and assumes that they are      
virtues4 ,this is very natural1 for our 

faults are the most conspicuous parts of
 our character1 and when we are still at
 the self-satisfied stage it is our     
faults that we cherish and admire4      
,consequently1 politeness1 in that it   
consists in concealing our faults1 is   
intolerable to a man who is impatient to
 display qualities that to him appear   
commendable and worthy4 ,the usual      
reason why we do not correct our faults 
is that we mistake them for qualities1  
and think that any practice which       
requires their concealment must be quite
 absurdly tyrannical4  ,the democrat is 
therefore profoundly convinced of two   
things2 first1 that all men are equal   
and that there is no such thing as      
inferiority or failing1 and secondly1   
that what men call faults are really    
natural characteristics of great        
interest4 ,he believes that faults are  
popular prejudices invented by          
intriguers1 priests1 nobles and rulers1 
for their own base purposes to inspire  
the poor with humility4 ,he looks upon  

this sense of inferiority as a curb on  
the people's power1 all the more potent 
that it works from within and has a     
paralysing effect on its energy4 ,he is 
persuaded that1 from this point of view1
 politeness is an aristocratic          
instrument of tyranny4  ,this explains  
why1 when the wave of democracy swept   
over ,france1 it brought with it a      
perfect frenzy of rudeness1 all the more
 curious in a nation remarkable for     
courtesy4 ,it was an affirmation that1  
appearances notwithstanding1 neither    
superiorities nor excellences of human  
character had any real existence4       
,rudeness is democratic4     ,,chapter  
,x4  ,,professional ,,customs4   ,the   
contempt for efficiency is carried far  
even in the liberal professions and in  
professional customs4 ,we all know the  
story1 perhaps a mythical one1 of the   
judge who said to an earnest young      
barrister who was conscientiously       
elaborating a question of law3 ,now1    
,mr4 ,so and ,so1 we are not here to    

discuss questions of law but to settle  
this business4 ,he did not say this by  
way of jest2 he wished to say3 ,the     
courts no longer deliver judgment on the
 merits of a case according to law1 but 
according to equity and common sense4   
,the intricacies of the law are left to 
professors1 so please when conducting a 
case do not behave like a professor of  
law4 ,this theory1 which even in this   
mild form would have horrified the      
ancients1 is very prevalent nowadays in 
legal circles4 ,it has crept in as an   
infiltration1 as one might call it1 from
 the democratic system4  ,a magistrate1 
nowadays1 whatever remnant of the       
ancient feeling of caste he may have    
retained1 certainly does not consider   
himself bound by the letter of the law1 
or by jurisprudence1 the written        
tradition2 when he is anything more than
 a subordinate with no other idea of    
duty than subservience to the           
,government1 he is a democratic         
magistrate1 a ,heliast of ,athens2 he   

delivers judgment according to the      
dictates of his individual conscience2  
he does not consider himself as a member
 of a learned body1 bound to apply the  
decisions of that body1 but as an       
independent exponent of the truth4  ,an 
eccentric1 but in truth very            
significant1 example of the new attitude
 of mind is to be found in the judge1   
who formally attributed to himself the  
right to make law and who in his        
judgments made references1 not to       
existing laws1 but to such vague        
generalities as appealed to him1 or to  
doctrines which he prophesied would     
later on be embodied in the law4 ,his   
,code was the ,code of the future4  ,the
 mere existence of such a man is of no  
particular importance1 but the fact that
 many people1 even those partially      
enlightened1 took him seriously1 that he
 was popular1 and that a considerable   
faction thought him a good judge1 is    
most significant4  ,there is another    
much commoner sign of the times4 ,the   

worst form of incompetence is perhaps   
that which allows a man to be competent 
without realising it1 and1 in criminal  
cases at least1 this seems to be the    
normal attitude of the majority of our  
magistrates4  ,we should read on this   
point a very curious pamphlet called ,le
 ,pli ,professionnel 7#aiji71 by ,marcel
 ,lestranger1 a provincial magistrate4  
,it is very pertinent to our subject4   
,it shows plainly that the magistracy   
nowadays1 both the qualified            
stipendiaries and the bench of          
magistrates1 has lost all confidence in 
itself and is terrified of public       
opinion as represented by newspapers1   
associations1 political clubs and the   
man in the street2 the magistrate knows 
too1 or thinks he knows1 that promotion 
depends1 not on a reputation for        
severity as it used to do1 but on a     
reputation for indulgence4  ,he is      
confronted in the execution of his duty 
by forces which are always in coalition 
against him2 the public1 almost always  

favourable to the accused1 the press1   
both local and ,parisian1 the so-called 
science of judicial medicine1 which is  
almost always disposed to consider the  
accused as persons not responsible for  
their actions4 ,he lives1 too1 in       
constant terror of being mixed up in a  
miscarriage of justice1 for miscarriage 
of justice is now a sort of craze1 and  
with a considerable section of the      
public every conviction is a miscarriage
 of justice4 ,and so the magistrate of  
first instance never dares to sum up    
severely1 and the stipendiary never     
dares press his interrogations with     
firmness4  ,there are exceptions of     
course2 but these exceptions1 by the    
astonishment which they excite1 and by  
the reaction to which they give rise1   
show sufficiently1 indeed conclusively1 
that they are abnormal1 outside the new 
order of things1 outside the new habits 
of the people4  ,more often than not the
 subordinate magistrate1 whose business 
it is to commit the prisoner for trial1 

acts with timidity and reserve1         
apologetically attenuating the crime2 he
 leaves loopholes of escape1 appeals in 
audible asides for indulgence1 dwells on
 the uncertainty of evidence4 ,he       
demands indeed the prisoner's head but  
lives in terror lest he obtain it4  ,the
 fact is what both he and the           
stipendiary desire is that the affair   
should be settled by an acquittal1 for  
an affair settled by an acquittal is an 
affair buried4 ,stone-dead has no       
fellow2 it is consigned to oblivion4 ,it
 can never be made the sort of affair   
which someone is sure to declare is a   
miscarriage of justice1 or which        
someone1 animated by private and        
political spite or merely for the sake  
of a jest1 can make into a ghost to     
haunt for ten or even fifteen years the 
unfortunate magistrate who had to deal  
with it4  ,m4 ,lestranger tells a story 
which1 from all the information ,i can  
glean and from what ,i can remember     
hearing at the time1 is absolutely true 

and a perfect illustration of thousands 
of similar cases4  ,a poacher1 aged     
nineteen1 first outraged and then       
strangled in the woods a peasant woman1 
the mother of a family4 ,on this        
occasion there could be no question of a
 miscarriage of justice or even of any  
suggestion of such a thing1 because the 
prisoner pleaded guilty4 ,that is a     
great point4 ,in ,france every          
conviction that is not based upon the   
prisoner's confession is a miscarriage  
of justice2 but when the prisoner pleads
 guilty there can be no incriminations  
of this sort1 although there might be1  
for false confessions are not unknown1  
but nothing of the sort is ever put     
forward1 and the case seemed to be quite
 straightforward4  ,but the magistrates 
were terrified that the prisoner would  
be condemned to death4 ,the crime was   
horrible1 particularly in the eyes of a 
village jury1 whose wives and daughters 
were often obliged to work some distance
 from the village4 ,moreover1 there was 

a tiresome man1 the widower of the      
victim1 thirsting for vengeance1 who    
sang the praises of his wife and brought
 his weeping son into court while he    
gave his evidence4 ,the president and   
the public prosecutor were in despair4  
,i have done all ,i can1 said the       
president to the public prosecutor4 ,i  
have made the most of his youth4 ,i have
 repeated 'only nineteen years of age4' 
,i have indeed done all ,i can4  ,i have
 done all ,i can1 said the public       
prosecutor to the president4 ,i have not
 said a word about the punishment4 ,i   
merely accused4 ,i could not plead for  
the defence4 ,i have done my best4  ,at 
the close of the hearing the chief      
constable was very reassuring to these  
gentlemen4 ,he is under twenty and he   
looked so respectable at the enquiry4   
,it is quite impossible that he should  
be condemned to death in this quiet     
village4 ,you will see1 he will not be  
sentenced to capital punishment4  ,he   
was not4 ,the jury brought in a verdict 

of guilty with extenuating              
circumstances4 ,the magistrates         
recovered their tranquillity4  ,m4      
,lestranger's facts are supported by    
figures4 ,those who commit crimes which 
excite pity1 such as infanticide and    
abortion1 are less and less likely to be
 prosecuted1 and if they are1 they are  
frequently let off1 however flagrant the
 offence4 ,the average number of        
acquittals during the last twelve years 
is twenty-six per cent4 ,a magistrate   
nowadays is a ,st4 ,francis of ,assize4 
,either the magistrate does not believe 
in his own efficiency1 or he sacrifices 
it to his peace of mind1 and he cares   
more for his own peace of mind than for 
the public safety4 ,the magistracy will 
soon be no more than a facade1 still    
imposing but not at all alarming4       
,there is already a very serious symptom
 of how little confidence the crowd has 
in the wholesome severities of justice2 
the criminal caught in the act is often 
lynched or almost lynched1 because it is

 well known that if he is not punished  
immediately1 he is very likely to escape
 punishment altogether4  --,yet this    
same crowd1 in the form of a jury1 is   
often1 almost always1 very              
indulgent4--,true1 and that is because  
between the crime and the assizes there 
is often an interval of six months4 ,at 
the date of the crime it is the         
misfortune of the victim that excites   
the crowd1 at the date of the assize it 
is the misfortune of the accused4 ,be   
this as it may1 the practice of lynching
 amounts to a formal accusation that    
both magistrates and juries are over    
indulgent4                  99       99 
99       99       99  ,the clergy even1 
who are more tenacious of tradition than
 any other order in the ,state1 are     
gradually becoming democratic to this   
extent1 that though by profession       
teachers of dogmas and mysteries1 they  
now teach only morality4 ,in this way   
they try to get into closer touch with  
the poor1 and so have a greater hold    

upon them4 ,evidently they are not      
altogether to blame4 ,only1 when they   
cease to teach dogma and interpret      
mysteries1 they cease to be a learned   
body or to have the prestige of a       
learned body4 ,on the other hand they   
sink to the level of any other          
philosophy1 which teaches and explains  
morality1 and illustrates it by sacred  
examples just as well as any priesthood4
 ,the result is that the people say to  
themselves ,what need have we of        
priests8 ,moral philosophers are good   
enough for us4  ,this ,americanism is   
not very dangerous1 in fact it does not 
matter1 in ,america1 where there are    
very few lay moral philosophers2 but it 
is a very great danger in ,france1      
,italy and ,belgium where their name is 
legion4                  99       99    
99       99       99  ,in every         
profession1 to sum it all up1 the root  
of the evil is this1 that we believe    
that mere dexterity and cunning are     
incomparably superior to knowledge and  

that cleverness is infinitely more      
valuable than sound learning4 ,those who
 follow professions believe this1 and   
the lay public that employs the         
professions is not dismayed by this     
attitude of the professional class2 and 
so things tend to that equality of      
charlatanry to which democracy          
instinctively tends4 ,democracy does not
 respect efficiency1 but it soon will   
have no opportunity to respect it2 for  
efficiency is being destroyed and before
 long will have disappeared altogether4 
,there will soon be no difference       
between the judge and the suitor1       
between the layman and the priest1 the  
sick man and the physician4 ,the        
contempt which is felt for efficiency   
destroys it little by little1 and       
efficiency1 accepting the situation1    
outruns the contempt that is felt for   
it4 ,the end will be that we shall all  
be only too much of one opinion4        
,,chapter ,,xi4  ,,attempted ,,remedies4
   ,we have sought very conscientiously1

 and democrats themselves have sought   
very conscientiously1 to find remedies  
for this constitutional disease of      
democracy4 ,we have preserved certain   
bodies1 relatively aristocratic1 as     
refuges1 we would fain believe1 of      
efficiency4 ,we have preserved for      
instance a ,senate1 elected by universal
 suffrage1 not directly1 but in the     
second degree4 ,we have preserved also a
 ,parliament 7a ,senate and a ,chamber  
of ,deputies71 a floating aristocracy   
which is continually being renewed4     
,this is1 however1 in a sense an        
aristocracy inasmuch as it stands       
between us and a direct and immediate   
government of the people by the people4 
,these remedies are by no means to be   
despised1 but we recognise that they are
 very feeble1 for the reason that       
democracy always eludes them4 ,by the   
care it takes to exclude efficiency1 it 
has made the ,chamber of ,deputies 7with
 some few exceptions7 a body resembling 
itself with absolute fidelity both in   

respect of the superficial character of 
its knowledge and the violence of its   
prejudices2 with the result in my       
opinion that the crowd might just as    
well govern directly and1 without the   
intervention of representatives1 by     
means of the plebiscite4  ,the same     
thing applies to the ,senate1 though    
perhaps in a more direct fashion4 ,the  
,senate is chosen by the delegates of   
universal suffrage4 ,these delegates1   
however1 are not chosen by a general    
universal suffrage where each department
 would choose four or five hundred      
delegates1 but by the town councillors  
of each commune or parish4 ,in these    
communes1 especially in the rural       
communes1 the municipal councillors who 
are by far the most numerous and1 with  
regard to elections1 the most           
influential1 are more or less completely
 dependent on the prefets4 ,the result  
is that the ,senate is1 practically1    
chosen by the prefets1 that is1 by the  
,government1 as used to be the case     

under the ,first and ,second ,empire4   
,the maker of the constitution made this
 arrangement for the benefit of his own 
party1 for he upheld authority2 and he  
wanted the ,central ,government to      
control the elections of the ,senate4   
,it has not turned out as he intended4  
,vos non vobis1 others have profited by 
his device1 as the following            
considerations will show4  ,it is well  
known that in ,france a deputy belonging
 to the opposition1 though sure of his  
constituents1 and certain to be         
re-elected indefinitely1 who for private
 reasons wishes to be a senator1 is     
obliged to be civil to the ,government  
in power1 to abate his opposition1 and  
to make himself pleasant1 if he wishes  
to avoid failure in his new ambition4   
,it is very inconvenient to have a      
strong and active opposition in the     
,senate4  ,it comes back again to this1 
that we have a ,senate not far removed  
from one elected by universal suffrage4 
,universal suffrage elects the ,chamber 

of ,deputies1 the ,chamber elects the   
,government1 and the ,government elects 
the ,senate4 ,the ,senate is therefore  
an extremely feeble anti-democratic     
remedy1 and if it were intended as a    
check on democracy1 it has not been a   
striking success4  ,if we really wish to
 have an upper chamber as competent as  
possible1 independent of the central    
authority1 and relatively independent of
 universal suffrage1 we must establish a
 chamber elected by the great           
constituent bodies of the nation1 and   
also in my opinion1 by universal        
suffrage1 but with modifications        
somewhat as follows4 ,the whole nation1 
divided for practical purposes into five
 or six large districts1 should elect   
five or six thousand delegates who in   
turn should elect three hundred         
senators4 ,there would then be no       
pressure from ,government nor any       
manufacture by the crowd of a           
representation fashioned in its own     
image1 and we should have a really      

select body composed of as much         
competence as could be got in the       
country4  ,it is1 however1 exactly the  
opposite of this that is done1 and the  
,french ,senate is an extremely feeble1 
anti-democratic remedy4  ,it represents 
the rural democracy1 arbitrarily guided 
and governed by the democratic          
,government4                 99       99
       99       99       99  ,another   
remedy which has been given an equally  
conscientious trial is the system of    
competitive examination1 which is       
supposed to be a guarantee for the      
ability of those who seek admission into
 government service4 ,the object of     
these examinations1 which are extremely 
detailed and complicated1 is to test the
 ability of the candidate in every      
particular1 to give employment to merit 
and to exclude favouritism4  --,you call
 that an anti-democratic remedy6 ,it is 
as democratic as well can be6--  ,nay1  
pardon6 ,it would be anti-monarchical if
 we lived under a monarchy1             

anti-aristocratic if we lived under an  
aristocracy1 and it is anti-democratic  
because our lot is cast in a democracy4 
,competition for public offices is a    
sort of co-optation4 ,in fact it is     
co-optation pure and simple4 ,when ,i   
suggested that the magistracy should be 
chosen by the magistrates1 that is1 the 
,cour de ,cassation by the magistrates  
and the magistrates in turn by the ,cour
 de ,cassation1 ,i was of course accused
 of being paradoxical1 as is always the 
case1 when one suggests something       
contrary to the usual custom4 ,i was1   
however1 only carrying a little further 
the principle which is already applied  
to officials4 ,in a certain sense and to
 a large extent officials recruit their 
numbers by co-optation4  ,it is true1   
they do not actually choose the         
officials1 but they eliminate the       
candidates whom they do not wish to     
have4 ,examination is ostracism of the  
inefficient4 ,the ,government1 of       
course1 has to decide who may be        

candidates1 but its selection for       
employment is limited to those of whom  
other officials 7the officials who      
conduct the examination7 can approve4   
,it is in fact co-optation4  ,the       
committee of examiners which admits a   
candidate to ,st4 ,cyr appoints an      
officer4 ,the committee which admits a  
candidate to the ,ecole ,polytechnique  
appoints an officer or an engineer4 ,a  
committee also which refuses a candidate
 at either of these places is           
encroaching on the ,national            
,sovereignty1 because it is forbidding  
the ,national ,sovereignty to make of   
this young man an officer or an         
engineer4 ,this is co-optation4 ,this is
 a guarantee of efficiency4 ,here a wall
 is raised against incompetence1 and    
against the jobbery under which         
incompetence would profit4  ,it is      
hardly necessary for me to add that this
 co-optation is limited to a very narrow
 field of operation4 ,it is confined in 
fact to the threshold of a man's career4

 ,once the candidate has been           
consecrated official1 by a board of     
examining officials1 he belongs1 both as
 regards advancement1 promotion and the 
reverse1 to the central authority alone1
 except in certain cases4 ,the          
co-optation of officials is merely a    
co-optation by elimination4 ,the        
elimination is made once and for all1   
and the non-eliminated 7i4e41 the       
successful candidate7 steps at once into
 the toils of the ,government1 that is1 
into the toils of popular electioneering
 and party politics1 when all the abuses
 which ,i have enumerated can and do    
arise4 ,to be fair ,i had of course to  
point out that we had tried to invent   
some slight barriers against the        
omnipotence of incompetence1 which      
prevent it being absolutely supreme4    
,unfortunately these prophylactic       
measures are very badly organised1 and1 
far from being capable of amendment1    
ought to be completely revolutionised4  
,the examination system in our country  

is founded on a misconception1 ,i mean  
on the confusion between knowledge and  
competence4 ,we search conscientiously  
for competence or efficiency1 and we    
believe that we have found it when we   
find knowledge1 but that is an error4   
,an examination requires from a         
candidate that he shall know1 and       
competition demands that he shall know  
more than the others1 but that is almost
 all that examination and competition   
require of him4 ,therefrom results one  
of the most painful open sores of our   
civilisation1--preparation for          
examinations4  ,preparation for         
examination is responsible for          
intellectual indigestion1 for minds     
overloaded with useless information1 and
 for a system of cramming1 which at once
 takes the heart out of men1 perhaps    
with good ability1 just at the age when 
their mental activity is most keen2     
which1 further1 as the result of this   
surfeit1 disgusts for the rest of his   
life and renders impotent for all       

intellectual effort1 the unfortunate    
patient who has been condemned to       
undergo this treatment for five1 eight1 
and sometimes ten years of his youth4   
,i am satisfied1 if ,i may be allowed to
 speak of myself in order to support my 
argument by an instance well known to   
me1 that1 if ,i have been able to work  
from the age of twenty-five to that of  
sixty-three1 it is because ,i have never
 succeeded except very moderately1 and  
,i am proud of it1 in competitive       
examinations4 ,being of a curious turn  
of mind ,i have been interested in the  
subject set in the syllabus1 but in     
other matters also1 and the syllabus has
 been neglected4 ,i sometimes passed1   
more often ,i failed1 with the result   
that at twenty-six ,i was behind my     
contemporaries1 but ,i was not          
overworked1 broken down1 and utterly    
sick of all intellectual effort4 ,i     
admit that some of my contemporaries who
 never failed in an examination1 and who
 passed them all with great brilliance1 

have worked as hard as ,i have up to    
sixty1 but they are extremely few4  ,the
 curious thing is that the results1 not 
perhaps disastrous1 but obviously very  
unsatisfactory1 of this examination     
system do not lead us to abandon it     
7that perhaps would be an extreme       
measure71 but make us aggravate and     
complicate it4 ,legal and medical       
examinations are much stiffer than they 
used to be1 and they require a greater  
physical effort1 but without requiring  
or obtaining any greater intellectual   
value4 ,in truth1 one might say1        
examination is nothing more than a test 
of good health1 and it is a very        
searching test1 for it often succeeds in
 destroying it4  ,here is an example    
which ,i know well4 ,it is necessary1 if
 a man desire to gain distinction as a  
professor of secondary education1 that  
he should be a bachelor1 a licentiate1  
an agrege or a doctor4 ,this is a       
qualification that counts1 and it means 
ten examinations or competitions1 two   

for the first half of the bachelor's    
degree1 two for the second1 two for the 
licentiate1 two for agrege1 two for the 
doctor's degree4 ,this1 moreover1 does  
not appear to be enough4 ,between the   
second part of the bachelor's degree and
 the licentiate's degree there is       
normally an interval of two years2      
between the licentiate and the          
agregation two years1 and between the   
agregation and the doctor's degree there
 is generally three or four years4 ,you 
perceive the danger6 ,between the       
licence and the agregation1 to go no    
further at present1 the future professor
 has two whole years to himself4 ,that  
is to say1 that during the first of     
these two years he will work alone4 ,he 
can work freely1 he can study in what   
direction he pleases1 without thinking  
of an examination at the end of twelve  
months2 he has escaped for the moment   
from the servitude of the syllabus4 ,the
 prospect makes us shudder with         
apprehension4 ,it is sadly to be feared 

that the young man may take a rest and  
draw breath1 or worse still he may be   
carried into some extraneous study by   
his personal aptitudes or tastes4 ,the  
personality of the candidate has here an
 opening1 a moment at which it has a    
possibility of asserting itself4 ,that  
must be stopped at all costs4  ,the     
authorities1 therefore1 have put in an  
intermediate examination between the    
licence and the agregation4 ,the        
examination1 it is true1 is on a subject
 chosen by the candidate himself2 so    
much it is only fair to admit4 ,the     
subject chosen1 however1 must be        
submitted to the professors4 ,their     
advice and indeed assistance must be    
invited4 ,the result1 if not the object1
 of this examination is to prevent the  
candidate1 during this perilous year of 
liberty1 from developing original ideas 
of his own and acting on them4  ,one    
examination every year for ten          
years--that is the ideal of the modern  
professor for the future professors who 

are in course of being trained4 ,between
 the second part of the bachelor's      
degree and the licentiate1 as there is  
there an interval of two years1 they    
will presently perceive that there ought
 to be an examination at the end of the 
first year1 and we shall have           
certificates of study in intermediate1  
secondary1 higher subjects4 ,between the
 agregation and the doctorat1 there are 
four years1 and naturally we shall want 
three examinations just to see how the  
future professor is getting on with his 
theses1 to encumber him with assistance 
and to prevent him doing them alone2    
first examination called the            
,bibliography of the ,theses for the    
,doctorat1 second examination called the
 ,methodology of the ,doctorat1 third   
examination called the ,preparation for 
the ,sustaining of the ,thesis1 and then
 the examination for the doctor's degree
 itself4  ,in this way the desired      
object is attained4 ,between the ages of
 seventeen and twenty-seven or thirty   

the examinee will have had to undergo   
sixteen examinations4 ,he will never    
have worked alone4 ,he will always have 
worked1 for periods of twelve months1 on
 a syllabus1 for an examination1 with a 
view of pleasing such and such          
professors1 modelling himself on their  
views1 their conceptions1 their general 
ideas1 their eccentricities1 aided by   
them1 influenced by them1 never knowing1
 and feeling he ought not to know1 not  
wishing to know1 and running a great    
risk if he did know1 and forming habits 
for his whole life so that he may never 
know what he thinks himself1 what he    
imagines himself1 what he seeks and     
would like to seek of his own motion1 or
 what he ought himself to try to be4 ,he
 will take up all this after he is      
thirty4  ,not a vestige of personality  
or original thought till the moment when
 it is too late for it to appear1 that  
is the maxim6  ,whence comes this       
frenzy1 this examino mania8 ,when one   
comes to think of it1 it seems to be a  

simple case of ,dandino-mania4 ,dandin  
says with great determination ,i mean to
 go and judge4 ,the professor of a      
certain age means to go and examine4 ,he
 no longer loves to profess1 he loves to
 be always examining4 ,this is very     
natural4 ,professing1 he is judged2     
examining1 he judges4 ,the one is always
 much pleasanter than the other4 ,for a 
professor1 to sweat in harness1 to feel 
oneself being examined1 that is1        
criticised1 discussed1 held up to       
judgment1 and chaffed by an audience of 
students and amateurs1 ceases at a      
certain age to be altogether pleasant2  
on the other hand to examine1 to sit on 
the throne with all the majesty of a    
judge1 to have only to criticise and not
 to produce1 to intervene only when the 
victim stumbles1 and to let him know    
that he has made a slip1 to hold the    
student for the whole year under the    
salutary terror of an approaching       
examination1 to remind him that he may  
need help and must by no means displease

 his professor--all this is very        
agreeable and makes up for many of the  
worries of the teaching profession4 ,the
 examination mania proceeds partly from 
the terror of being oneself examined1   
and partly from the pleasure of         
examining others4  ,all this is true1   
but there is more than this4 ,the       
precocious development of early talent  
and originality is the thing which      
strangely terrifies these               
examination-maniacs4 ,they have a horror
 of the man who teaches himself4 ,they  
have a horror of any one who ventures to
 think for himself and to enquire for   
himself at twenty-five years of age4    
,they want1 like an old hen1 to mother  
the young mind as long as possible4     
,they will not let it find its own feet1
 till very late1 and till1 as the       
scoffer might well say1 its limbs are   
absolutely atrophied4 ,i do not say that
 they are wrong4 ,the man who has taught
 himself is apt to be a vain1 conceited 
fellow who takes pleasure in thinking   

for himself1 and has an absolute delight
 in despising the thoughts of others4   
,it is1 however1 no less the fact1 that 
it is among these self-taught men that  
we find those vigorous spirits who      
venture boldly beyond the domain of     
human science and extend its frontier4  
,the question then is which is best1 to 
favour all these troublesome self-taught
 people in the hope of finding some good
 ones among them1 or by crossing and    
worrying them to run the risk of        
destroying the good as well as the bad4 
,i am myself strongly in favour of the  
first of these alternatives4 ,it is     
better to let all go their own way1 even
 though pretenders to originality come  
to grief1 a thing that matters very     
little4 ,minds that are truly original  
will develop themselves and find room   
for the expansion of all their powers4  
,but here1--take note how the democratic
 spirit comes in everywhere--the        
question of numbers is raised4 ,ten     
times more numerous1 ,i am told1 are the

 pretenders to originality whom we save 
from themselves by discipline than the  
true geniuses whose wings we clip4  ,i  
reply that1 in matters intellectual1    
questions of figures do not count4 ,an  
original spirit strangled is a loss     
which is not compensated by the rescue  
of ten fools from worse excesses of     
folly4 ,an original spirit left free to 
be himself is worth more than ten fools 
whose folly is partially restrained4    
,nietzsche has well said3 ,modern       
education consists in smothering the    
exceptional in favour of the normal4 ,it
 consists in directing the mind away    
from the exceptional into the channel of
 the average4 ,this ought not to be4 ,i 
do not say that education should do the 
opposite of all this4 ,oh no1 far from  
that4 ,it is not the business of        
education to look for exceptional       
genius1 or to help in its creation4     
,exceptional genius is born of itself   
and it has no need of such assistance4  
,but even less is it the business of    

education to regard the exceptional with
 terror1 and to take every means        
possible1 even the most barbarous and   
most detailed1 to prevent it as long as 
possible from coming to the light4      
,education ought to draw all that it can
 out of mediocrity1 and to respect      
originality as much as it can4 ,it ought
 never to attempt to turn mediocrity    
into originality1 nor to reduce         
originality to the level of mediocrity4 
,and how can all this be done8 ,by an   
intervention that is always discreet1   
and sometimes by non-intervention4  ,at 
the present moment its policy is equally
 distant from non-intervention and from 
an intervention that is discreet4  ,it  
is in this way that the very institution
 which we have invented to safeguard    
efficiency contributes not a little to  
the triumph of its opposite4 ,these     
victims of examination are competent in 
respect of knowledge1 instruction and   
technical proficiency4 ,they are        
incompetent in respect of intellectual  

value1 often1 though perhaps not so     
often as formerly1 in respect of moral  
value4  ,as far as their intellectual   
value is concerned1 they have very      
frequently no mental initiative4 ,it has
 been cramped1 hidden away1 and trampled
 down4 ,if it ever existed1 it exists   
now no longer4 ,they are all their days 
merely instruments4 ,they have been     
taught many things1 especially          
intellectual obedience4 ,they continue  
to obey intellectually1 their brain acts
 like well made and well lubricated     
machinery4 ,the difference between the  
novel and the play1 said ,brunetiere1 is
 that in the play the characters act1 in
 the novel they are acted4 ,i do not    
know if this be true1 but of the        
functionary we might say as often as    
not1 he does not think1 he is thought4  
,the official also is incompetent1      
though less and less often1 in respect  
of moral worth4 ,by the exercise of     
intellectual obedience1 he has been     
trained to moral obedience also and he  

is little disposed to assert his        
independence4 ,observe how everything   
tends to this end4 ,this method of      
co-opting officials by means of         
elimination1 as ,i have said1 operates  
only1 as ,i have also shown1 at the     
outset of the official's career4 ,from  
this moment onwards the functionary must
 depend on the ,government only1 his    
whole preparation during ten years of   
education has been calculated to ensure 
his absolute dependence on his official 
directors4 ,so far good1 perhaps a      
little too good4 ,it would have been    
well if the education of the functionary
 had left him1 together with a little   
originality of mind1 a little           
originality of character as well4       
99       99       99       99       99  
,we have sought1 very conscientiously   
also1 and1 ,i may even say1 with an     
admirable enthusiasm1 yet another remedy
 for the faults of democracy1 another   
remedy for its incompetence4 ,it is     
said3 ,the crowd is incompetent1 so be  

it1 it is necessary to enlighten it4    
,primary education1 spread broadcast1 is
 the solution of every difficulty1 and  
provides an answer to every question4   
,from this argument aristocrats have    
derived some little amusement4 ,how is  
this8 they exclaimed1 what is the       
meaning of this paradox8 ,you are       
democrats and that means that you       
attribute political excellence1         
'political virtue1' as we used to say1  
to the crowd1 that is to ignorance4 ,why
 then do you wish to enlighten the      
crowd1 that is to destroy the very      
virtue which1 on your own showing1 is   
the cause of its superiority8 ,the      
democrats reply that the crowd1 even as 
it is1 is already very preferable to    
aristocracy1 and that it will be still  
more so when it has received            
instruction4 ,they resolve the apparent 
contradiction by the argument a         
fortiori4  ,at all events1 the democrats
 set to work most vigorously on the     
education of the people4 ,the result is 

that the people is much better educated 
than formerly1 and ,i am one of those   
who regard this result as excellent2 but
 the further result is1 that the people 
is saturated with false ideas1 and this 
is less comforting4  ,ancient republics 
had their demagogues1 their orators1 who
 inflamed the evil qualities of the     
people1 by bestowing on them            
high-sounding names and by flattery4    
,the great democracy of modern times has
 its demagogues4 ,these are its         
elementary school teachers4 ,they come  
of the people1 are proud to belong to   
it1 for which of course no one can blame
 them1 they distrust everything that is 
not the people1 they are all the more of
 the people because among the people    
they are intellectually in the first    
rank while elsewhere they are of        
secondary importance2 and what men love 
is not the group of which they form a   
part1 but the group of which they are   
the chief4 ,they are1 therefore1        
profoundly democratic4  ,so far nothing 

could be better4 ,but it is a narrow    
form of democratic sentiment which they 
hold1 for they are only half-educated1  
or rather 7for who is completely        
educated or even well educated871       
because they have only received a       
rudimentary education4 ,rudimentary     
education may perhaps make us capable of
 having one idea1 it certainly renders  
us incapable of having two4 ,the man of 
rudimentary education is always the man 
of one single idea and of one fixed     
idea4 ,he has few doubts4 ,now the wise 
man doubts often1 the ignorant man      
seldom1 the fool never4 ,the man of one 
idea is more or less impermeable to any 
process of reasoning that is foreign to 
this idea4 ,an ,indian author has said3 
,you can convince the wise2 you can     
convince1 with more difficulty1 the     
ignorant2 the half-educated1 never4     
,now no one ever convinces the          
elementary schoolmaster4 ,he is         
confirmed in his convictions by         
defending1 and still more by discussing 

them4 ,he is the slave of his opinion4  
,he does not possess it always quite    
clearly1 but it possesses him4 ,he loves
 it with all his soul1 as a priest his  
religion1 because it is the truth1      
because it is beautiful1 because it has 
been persecuted1 and because it means   
the salvation of the world4 ,he would   
enjoy its triumph but he yearns still   
more to be a martyr in its cause4  ,he  
is a convinced democrat and a           
sentimental democrat4 ,his conviction   
forms a solid basis for his sentiment1  
and his sentiment kindles to a white    
heat his conviction4 ,his conviction    
makes him turn a deaf ear to every      
objection1 his sentiment inspires him   
with hatred for his adversary4 ,for him 
the man who is not a democrat is wrong1 
and further1 to him an object of hatred4
 ,in his eyes the distance between      
himself and the aristocrat is as the    
distance between truth and error1 nay   
between good and evil1 between honour   
and dishonour4 ,the schoolmaster is the 

fanatic vassal of democracy4  ,then1 as 
he is a man of one idea1 he is          
single-minded1 narrowly logical1 and    
logical to the utmost extreme4 ,he goes 
straight forward where his argument     
leads4 ,an idea which admits neither    
qualification nor question can go far in
 a very short space of time4 ,and the   
schoolmaster drives all his democratic  
principles to their natural and logical 
conclusion4  ,he develops these         
principles and all that they imply by   
the sheer force of what he calls his    
reasoning reason1 and it appears to him 
to be not only natural but salutary to  
seek their realisation4 ,everything of  
which the principle is good is good     
itself1 and no one but ,montesquieu     
could ever believe that an institution  
could be ruined by the excess of the    
principle in which its merit consists4  
,the schoolmaster1 therefore1 deduces   
their logical consequences from the two 
great democratic principles1 the        
sovereignty of the nation1 and equality2

 he deduces them rigorously1 and arrives
 at the following conclusions4  ,the    
people alone is sovereign4 ,therefore1  
though there can be individual liberty  
and liberty of association1 there ought 
to be only such individual liberty and  
liberty of association as the people    
permits4 ,liberty cannot be and ought   
not to be anything more than a thing    
tolerated by the sovereign people4 ,the 
individual may think1 speak1 write1 and 
act as he pleases1 but only so far as   
the people will allow him2 for if he can
 do these things with absolute freedom1 
or even with limitations which are not  
imposed by the people1 he becomes the   
sovereign power1 or the power which     
fixed the limits of his freedom becomes 
the sovereign1 and the sovereignty of   
the people disappears4  ,this brings us 
back to the simple definition that      
liberty is the right to do what we      
please within the limits of the law4    
,and who makes the law8 ,the people4    
,liberty is then the right to do        

everything which the people permits us  
to do4 ,nothing more2 if we attempt to  
go beyond this1 the sovereignty of the  
individual begins1 and the sovereignty  
of the people disappears4  --,but to    
have liberty to do only what the people 
permits1 this is to be free as we were  
under ,louis ,,xiv4--and that is not to 
be free at all6  ,so be it4 ,there will 
indeed be no liberty unless the law     
permit it4 ,surely you do not wish to be
 free in opposition to the law8  --,the 
law may be tyrannical4 ,it is tyrannical
 if it is unjust4--  ,the law has the   
right to be unjust4 ,otherwise the      
sovereignty of the people would be      
limited and this must not be4           
--,fundamental and constitutional laws  
might be devised to limit this          
sovereignty of the people in order to   
guarantee such and such of the liberties
 for the individual4--  ,and the people 
would then be tied6 ,the sovereignty of 
the people would be suppressed6 ,no1 the
 people cannot be tied4 ,the sovereignty

 of the people is fundamental and must  
be left intact4  --,then there will be  
no individual liberty8--  ,only such a  
measure as the people will tolerate4    
--,then there will be no liberty of     
association8  ,still less2 for an       
association is in itself a limitation of
 the sovereignty of the nation4 ,it has 
its own laws1 which from a democratic   
point of view is an absurd and monstrous
 incongruity4 ,the right of association 
limits the national sovereignty1 just as
 would a free town or sanctuary of      
refuge4 ,it limits the nation1 and pulls
 it up short in face of its closed      
doors4 ,it is a ,state within a ,state2 
where there is association1 there arises
 at once a source of organisation other 
than the great organism of the popular  
will4 ,it is like an animal which lives 
some sort of independent life within    
another animal larger than itself and   
which1 living on that other animal1 is  
still independent of it4 ,in fact there 
can be only one association1 the        

association of the nation1 otherwise the
 sovereignty of the nation is limited1  
that is1 destroyed4 ,no liberty of      
association can then exist4             
,associations of course will exist which
 the people will tolerate1 but their    
right of existence is always revocable  
and they are always liable to be        
dissolved and destroyed4 ,otherwise the 
national sovereignty would be held to   
abdicate and it can never abdicate4     
--,ah6 but there is one association1 at 
least1 which to some extent is sacred1  
and which the sovereignty of the people 
is bound to respect4 ,i mean the family4
 ,the father is the head of the family1 
he educates his children and brings them
 up as he thinks best1 till they come to
 man's estate4--  ,nay1 that will not   
pass6 ,for here again we have a         
limitation of the sovereignty of the    
nation4 ,the child does not belong to   
his father4 ,if this were so1 at the    
threshold of each home the sovereignty  
of the people would be arrested1 which  

means that it would cease to exist      
anywhere4 ,the child1 like the man1     
belongs to the people4 ,he belongs to   
it1 in the sense that he must not be a  
member of an association which might    
dare to think differently from the      
people1 or perhaps even harbour ideas in
 contradiction to the thought of the    
people4 ,it would indeed be dangerous to
 leave our future citizens for twenty   
years outside the national thought1     
which is the same thing as being outside
 the community4 ,imagine five or six    
bees brought up apart1 outside the laws1
 regulations1 and constitution of the   
hive2 imagine further that of these     
groups of bees there were several       
hundreds in the hive4 ,the result would 
be the destruction of the hive4  ,it is 
above all things in the family that the 
sovereignty of the people ought to      
prevail4 ,it ought above all things to  
refuse to recognise the association of  
the family1 and to wage war against it  
wherever it finds it4 ,it should leave  

to parents the right of embracing their 
children1 but nothing more4 ,the right  
to educate them in ideas perhaps        
contrary to those of their parents      
belongs to the people1 which1 here as   
well as elsewhere1 perhaps even more    
than elsewhere for the interests at     
stake are more important1 must be       
absolutely sovereign4  ,this1 then1 is  
what the schoolmaster1 with a relentless
 logic which appears to me to be        
irresistible1 deduces from the principle
 of the national sovereignty4  ,from the
 principle of equality he deduces       
another point4 ,all men are equal by    
nature and before the law4 ,that is to  
say1 if there were justice1 all men     
ought to have been equal by nature1 and 
further1 if there is to be justice1 all 
men ought to be equal before the law4   
,very obviously1 however1 all men are   
not equal before the law1 and they are  
not equal by nature4 ,very well then1 we
 must make them so4  ,they are not equal
 before the law4 ,they appear to be so1 

but they are not4 ,the rich man1 even   
supposing that the magistrates are      
perfectly and strictly honest1 by reason
 of the fact that he can remunerate the 
best solicitors1 advocates1 and         
witnesses1 by reason further of the fact
 that he intimidates by his influence   
all those who could appear against him1 
is not in every respect the equal of the
 poor man before the law4  ,even less   
does this equality exist in the presence
 of that union of constituted social    
forces which we call society4 ,in this  
respect the rich man will be the        
influential man2 the man well connected1
 the man on whom no one depends1 but    
whom no one likes to cross or to        
contradict4 ,there is1 between the rich 
and the poor man1 however equal we may  
pretend them to be before the law1 the  
difference between the man who gives    
orders and the man who is obliged to    
obey4 ,real equality1 in society1 in    
presence of society and even in presence
 of the law1 only exists where there is 

neither rich nor poor4  ,but there will 
always be rich and poor1 as long as the 
institution of inheritance remains4     
,abolish inheritance therefore6  ,but1  
even with inheritance abolished1 there  
will still be rich and poor4 ,the man   
who can make his fortune rapidly will be
 a strong man relatively to the man who 
can not make a fortune1 and1 ,i would   
have you note it1 even when we have     
abolished inheritance1 the son of the   
strong man1 during the life of his      
father1 will be strong himself1 so that 
even if we abolish inheritance1 a       
privilege1 namely1 the privilege of     
birth will still exist and equality will
 not exist4  ,there is only one state of
 affairs under which equality is        
possible1 that is when no one possesses 
and no one can acquire anything4 ,the   
only social policy so devised that no   
one can possess and no one can acquire  
anything is the policy of a community of
 goods1 that is ,communism or           
,collectivism4 ,collectivism is nothing 

very wonderful4 ,collectivism is        
equality2 and equality is collectivism1 
otherwise our equality will be nothing  
but a phantom and an hypocrisy4 ,every  
one who is a convinced and sincere      
egalitarian1 and who takes the trouble  
to think1 is forced to be a             
collectivist4 ,bonald asked very        
wittily3 ,do you know what is a deist8  
,it is a man who has not lived long     
enough to be an atheist4 ,we in our turn
 ask3 ,do you know what is an           
anti-collectivist democrat8 ,it is a man
 who has not lived long enough to be a  
collectivist1 or who1 having lived long 
enough1 has never taken the trouble to  
think1 and to perceive what are the     
necessary consequences of his own       
principles4  ,but surely collectivism is
 a chimaera1 an utopia1 a thing         
impossible4 ,certainly it is impossible 
in the sense that in the country which  
adopts it the source of all initiative  
will be destroyed4 ,no man will make an 
effort to improve his position1 since it

 must never be improved4 ,the whole     
country will become one of those        
stagnant pools to which one of our      
ministers lately referred4 ,everyone    
having become an official1 everyone will
 realise the ideal of the official which
 the ,goncourts have very neatly        
described4 ,the good official1 they say1
 is the man who combines laziness with  
extreme accuracy4 ,it is a definitive   
definition4 ,the country that reformed  
itself in this way would be conquered at
 the end of ten years by some           
neighbouring people more or less        
ambitious4  ,that admits of no question2
 but what does it prove8 ,that          
collectivism is only impossible because 
it is only possible if established in   
every country at once4 ,very well1 and  
in order to establish it in every       
country at once1 only one thing is      
needful1 namely1 that there shall no    
longer be distinct and separate         
countries and no longer any             
nationalities4 ,it surely will not      

answer to establish collectivism before 
the abolition of nationalities1 since1  
once established1 it will serve no      
purpose except to bring into prominent  
relief the vast superiority of countries
 which have not adopted collectivism4   
,we must1 therefore1 take our problems  
in order and abolish nationalities      
before we can establish collectivism4   
,now if nations organise themselves     
against nature 7the nature that1 the    
schoolmaster assumes1 makes all men     
equal71 if instinctively they organise  
themselves in a hierarchy which is      
aristocratic1 if they have their leaders
 and their subordinates1 their stronger 
and their weaker members1 it is because 
this arrangement is necessary in a camp1
 and each nation feels that it is a     
camp4 ,if each feels that it is a camp1 
it is simply because there are other    
nations round it1 because it feels and  
knows that there are others round it4   
,when there are no longer other nations1
 each nation will organise itself no    

longer against nature1 but naturally1   
that is to say on egalitarian           
principles4 ,nature perhaps strictly    
speaking is not egalitarian1 but it     
tends towards equality in the sense that
 it produces many more1 indeed          
infinitely more1 mediocrities than      
superior intelligences4  ,thus equality 
demands the abolition of inheritance1   
and the equality of possessions4        
,equality of possessions necessitates   
collectivism1 and collectivism requires 
the abolition of nationalities4 ,we are 
egalitarians1 then collectivists1 and by
 logical consequence anti-patriots4  ,so
 argue the great majority of school     
teachers1 with an absolute logic1 in my 
opinion1 irrefutable1 with the logic    
which takes no account of facts1 and    
which only takes account of its own     
principle and of itself4 ,so they will  
all argue to-morrow1 if they continue1  
as it is probable they will continue1 to
 be very excellent dialecticians4  ,will
 they go back to the premises and say1  

that if the sovereignty of the people   
and equality lead logically and         
imperatively to these conclusions1 it is
 perhaps because the sovereignty of the 
people and equality are false ideas1 and
 because these conclusions prove them to
 be false8 ,this is a course not likely 
to be taken1 for the sovereignty of the 
people and the principle of equality are
 something more than general ideas1 they
 are sentiments4  ,they are sentiments  
which have become ideas1 as is the case 
doubtless with all general ideas1 and   
they are sentiments of great strength4  
,the sovereignty of the people is the   
truth for him who believes in it1       
because it ought to be true1 because it 
is a thing as full of majesty for him as
 was ,caesar in all his pomp for the    
ancient ,roman1 or ,louis ,,xiv4 in all 
his glory for the man of the seventeenth
 century4  ,equality is truth for him   
who believes1 because it ought to be    
true1 because it is justice1 and because
 it would be infamous if justice and    

truth were not one4 ,for the democrat1  
the world has ever been rising          
gradually1 since its creation1 towards  
the sovereignty of the people and the   
doctrine of equality2 the latter        
contains the former1 the former is      
destined to found the latter and has    
this mission for its purpose in life2   
together they constitute civilisation1  
and if they are not attained1 there is a
 relapse into barbarism4  ,they are     
dogmas of faith4 ,a dogma is an         
overmastering sentiment which has found 
expression in a formula4 ,from these two
 dogmas everything that can be deduced  
without breach of logic is truth which  
it is our right and duty to proclaim4   
,we must add that the schoolmaster is   
urged in this same direction by         
sentiments of a less general character1 
which nevertheless have an influence of 
their own4 ,he is placed in his commune 
in direct opposition to the priest1 the 
only person very often who is1 like     
himself1 in that place a man of some    

little education4 ,hence rivalry and a  
struggle for influence4 ,now the priest1
 by a series of historical incidents1 is
 a more or less warm partisan sometimes 
of monarchy but almost always of        
aristocracy4 ,he is a member of a body  
that once was an estate of the realm1   
and he is persuaded that his corporation
 is still an estate of the realm1       
notwithstanding all that has happened4  
,if the existing order is regulated by  
the concordat1 the existing order       
recognises his corporation as a body    
legitimatised by the ,state1 since it   
treats it on the same terms as the      
magistracy and the army4 ,if the        
existing order is one based on the      
separation of ,state and ,church1 his   
corporation appears to him still more to
 be an estate of the realm1 because     
being forced into an attitude of solid  
organisation1 and recognising no        
limitations of frontier1 it becomes a   
collective personage which1 not without 
peril1 but also not without a certain   

measure of success1 has often ventured  
to cross swords with the ,state itself4 
,as the priest then belongs to an order 
endowed with an historic authority which
 is nevertheless distinct from1 and in  
no wise a delegation from1 the authority
 of the people1 the priest cannot fail  
more or less definitely and consciously 
to adopt an attitude of mind favourable 
to aristocracy4  ,the school teacher1   
his rival1 is thrown then all the more  
inevitably towards the adoption of      
democratic principles1 and he embraces  
them with a fervour into which enters   
jealousy quite as much as conviction4   
,they mean more to him than even to an  
eighteenth century philosopher1 because 
he has a much greater personal interest 
in believing them1 the interest of      
personal dislike and animosity2 for it  
is his belief that everything taught by 
the priest is the pure invention of     
ingenious oppressors who wish to enslave
 the people in order to consolidate     
their own tyranny2 and that is his      

reason for professing philosophical     
ideas resuscitated from the teaching of 
,diderot1 and ,holbach4 ,for the school 
teacher it is almost inconceivable that 
the priest should be anything but a     
rascal4  ,atheism is aristocratic1 said 
,robespierre1 thinking of ,rousseau4    
,atheism is democratic1 say our         
present-day school teachers4 ,whence    
comes this difference of opinion8 ,first
 because it was fashionable among the   
great lords of the eighteenth century to
 be libertines and free-thinkers1 but   
among the people the belief in ,god was 
unanimous4 ,secondly1 because the       
priests of our day1 for the reasons     
which ,i have given and from remembrance
 of the persecutions suffered by their  
,church at the date of the first        
triumphs of democracy1 have remained    
aristocrats or have become so even more 
firmly than they ever were before4      
,atheism then has become democratic as a
 weapon against the deists who are      
generally aristocrats4  ,besides1       

atheism fits in very well1 whatever     
,robespierre may have thought1 with the 
general sentiments of the baser         
demagogy4 ,to be restrained by nothing1 
to be limited by nothing1 that is the   
dominant idea of the people1 or rather  
it is the dominant idea of the democrat 
for the people1 that it should be       
restrained by nothing and limited by    
nothing in its sovereign power4 ,now    
,god is a limit1 ,god is a restraint4   
,and just as the democrat will not admit
 of a secular constitution which the    
people could not destroy and which would
 prevent him from making bad laws2 just 
as the democrat will not submit--if we  
may adopt the terminology of            
,aristotle--to being governed by laws1  
to be governed that is by an ancient    
body of law which would check the people
 and obstruct it in its daily           
fabrication of decrees2 so just in the  
same spirit the democrat does not admit 
of a ,god ,who has issued ,his          
commandments1 ,who has issued ,his body 

of laws1 anterior and superior to all   
the laws and all the decrees of men1 and
 ,who sets ,his limit on the legislative
 eccentricities of the people1 on its   
capricious omnipotence1 in a word1 on   
the sovereignty of the people4  ,after  
,sedan1 ,bismarck was asked3 ,now that  
,napoleon has fallen1 on whom do you    
make war8 ,he replied3 ,on ,louis ,,xiv4
 ,so the democrat questioned on his     
atheism could reply3 ,i am warring      
against ,moses4  ,this is the origin of 
the atheism of democrats and            
schoolmasters4 ,this is the origin of   
the formula3 ,neither ,god nor ,master1 
which for the anarchist requires no     
correction nor supplement1 which for the
 democrat has only to be modified3      
,neither ,god nor ,master1 save the     
,people4  ,at the end of one of his     
great political speeches in #ahdi or    
#ahej1 ,victor ,hugo said3 ,in the      
future there will only be two powers2   
the ,people and ,god4 ,the modern       
democrat has persuaded himself that if  

there be a ,god1 the sovereignty of the 
people is infringed1 if he believe in   
,him4  ,lastly1 the school teacher is   
confirmed in his democratic sentiments1 
in all his democratic sentiments1 by the
 political position which has been made 
for him in ,france4 ,it is a strange    
thing1 a disconcerting anomaly1 that the
 ,governments of the nineteenth century 
7especially1 we must do it this justice1
 the present ,government71 have very    
handsomely respected the liberty of     
professors of higher education1 and of  
secondary education1 and have not in the
 very slightest degree respected the    
liberty of the teachers of elementary   
education4 ,the professor of higher     
education1 especially since #ahgj1 can  
teach exactly what he pleases1 except   
immorality and contempt of our country  
and its laws4 ,he can even discuss our  
laws1 provided always that he maintains 
the principle that1 such as they are1   
they ought to be obeyed till they are   
repealed4 ,his liberty as to his        

opinions political1 social and religious
 is complete4 ,it is only occasionally  
constrained by the disorderly           
demonstrations of his students4 ,the    
professor of secondary education enjoys 
a liberty almost equally wide4 ,he is   
subject1 but only in an extremely       
liberal fashion1 to a programme or      
syllabus of studies4 ,as to the spirit  
in which he conducts his work he is     
practically never molested4 ,he is given
 a free hand4  ,nor has it ever occurred
 to any ,government to ask a professor  
of higher and secondary education how he
 votes at political elections1 still    
less to require him to canvass in favour
 of the candidates agreeable to the     
,government4  ,when1 however1 we pass to
 elementary education we see everything 
is changed4 ,the elementary teacher is  
not appointed by his natural chief1 the 
recteur or ,minister of ,public         
,education1 he is appointed by the      
prefet1 that is by the ,minister of the 
,interior1 the political head of the    

,government4 ,in other words1 this is   
the same process as the appointment of  
officials by the people1 described a few
 pages back1 but with one intermediary  
the less4 ,it is pre-eminently the      
,minister of the ,interior who          
represents the political will of the    
nation at any given date4 ,and it is the
 ,minister of the ,interior who through 
his prefets appoints the elementary     
school teacher4 ,it is then the         
political will of the nation which      
chooses the school teachers4 ,it would  
be impossible to convey to them more    
clearly 7which is only fair1 for people 
should be made to understand their      
duties7 that they are chosen for        
considerations of politics and that they
 ought to consider themselves as        
political agents4  ,and indeed they are 
nothing else1 or perhaps we should say  
they are something else but above all   
they are politicians4 ,the              
schoolteachers depend on the prefets and
 the prefets depend much on the         

deputies1 yet it is not the deputies who
 appoint them1 but it is they who can   
remove them1 who can get them promoted  
or disgraced1 who by constant removals  
can reduce them to destitution4 ,surely1
 every candid person will exclaim1 given
 the difficult and scandalous situation 
in which they are put by the hand which 
appoints them1 they ought at least to   
have the guarantee and assurance1 very  
relative and ineffectual though it be1  
of irremovability4 ,but they have not   
got it4 ,the professors of higher       
education who do not require it have got
 it1 the professors of secondary        
education have it to all intents and    
purposes4 ,the elementary school teacher
 has it not4  ,he is1 therefore1        
delivered over to the politicians who   
make of him an electioneering agent1 who
 reckon him as such1 and who would never
 pardon him if he failed them4  ,the    
result is that the majority of school   
teachers are demagogues because they    
like it1 and with magnificent enthusiasm

 and passion4 ,the minority who have no 
turn for demagogy are demagogues though 
they do not like it1 and because they   
are forced by necessity4  ,even those   
who have no disposition that way become 
demagogues in the end1 for that is the  
way of the world4 ,in the heat of the   
melee1 said ,augier1 there are no       
mercenaries4 ,our school teachers1      
thrown1 sometimes against their will1   
into the battle1 forced at least to     
appear to be fighting1 receive knocks   
and when they have received them1 they  
become attached to the cause on whose   
behalf they have suffered4 ,we always   
end by having the opinions which are    
attributed to us1 and being taken for a 
demagogue the moment he arrives at his  
village1 the young school teacher1 not  
daring to say anything to the contrary1 
and being very ill received by all other
 parties1 naturally becomes a demagogue 
with some show of conviction the very   
next year4               99       99    
99       99       99  ,so the democracy 

receives no instruction that does not   
confirm and strengthen it in its errors4
  ,for its good some one ought to teach 
it not to believe itself omnipotent1 to 
have scruples as to its omnipotence1 and
 to believe that this omnipotence should
 have defined limits2 it is taught      
without reserve the dogma of the        
unlimited sovereignty of the people4    
,for its good it should believe that    
equality is so contrary to nature that  
we have no right to torture nature in   
order to establish real equality among  
men1 and that the people which has      
established such a state of things1     
which is quite possible1 must succumb to
 the fate of those who try to live      
exactly in opposition to the laws of    
nature4 ,instead1 it is taught1 and it  
is true enough1 that equality is not    
possible1 if it is not complete1 if it  
is not thorough1 that it ought to be    
applied to differences of fortune1      
social position1 intelligence1 perhaps  
even to our stature and personal        

appearance1 and that no effort should be
 spared to bring all things to one      
absolute level4  ,for its good1 since it
 is natural enough that it should       
dislike heavy taxation1 sentiments of   
patriotism should be reinforced2 it is  
taught on the contrary that military    
service is a painful legacy left by a   
hateful and barbarous past1 and that it 
ought to disappear very soon before the 
warming rays of a peaceful civilisation4
  ,in a word1 to use again the language 
of ,aristotle1 the pure wine of         
democracy is poured out to the people as
 it was by the demagogues to the        
,athenians2 and from the quarter whence 
a remedy might have been expected there 
come only incitements to deeper         
intoxication4  ,aristotle has made yet  
another wise and profound observation on
 the question of equality3 ,we must     
establish equality1 he said1 in the     
passions rather than in the fortunes of 
men4 ,and he adds3 ,and this equality   
can only be the fruit of education      

derived from the influence of good laws4
 ,that is indeed the point4 ,education  
should have but one object2 to reduce   
the passions to equality1 or rather to  
equanimity1 and to a certain equilibrium
 of mind4 ,the education given to modern
 democracy does not lead to this1 but   
leads in the opposite direction4        
,,chapter ,,xii4  ,,the ,,dream4   ,what
 remedies can we apply to this modern   
disease1 the worship of intellectual and
 moral incompetence8 ,what is1 as ,m4   
,fouillee puts it1 the best way of      
avoiding the hidden rocks which threaten
 democracies8 ,it is hard to say1 for we
 have to do with an evil which can only 
be cured by itself1 with an evil which  
is more than content with itself4  ,m4  
,fouillee 7in the ,revue des ,deux      
,mondes of ,november1 #aiji7 proposes an
 aristocratic ,upper ,chamber1 that is  
to say1 one that would represent all the
 competence of the country1 inasmuch as 
it would be appointed by everything     
which is based on some particular form  

of excellence1 the magistracy1 the army1
 the university1 the chambers of        
commerce1 and so on4  ,nothing could be 
better2 but the consent of the democracy
 would be necessary1 and it is precisely
 these incorporations of efficiency that
 the democracy cannot abide1 looking on 
them1 not without reason1 as being in a 
sense aristocracies4  ,he proposes also 
an energetic intervention on the part of
 the ,state to restore public morality1 
action for the suppression of           
alcoholism1 gambling and pornography4   
,beyond the fact that his argument      
savours of reaction1 for it recalls to  
us the programme of moral order of      
#ahgc1 we must remark1 as indeed ,m4    
,fouillee himself acknowledges1 that the
 democratic ,state can hardly afford to 
kill the thing which enables it to live1
 to destroy its principal source of     
revenue4 ,democracy1 as its most        
authoritative representatives have      
admitted1 is not a cheap form of        
government4 ,it has always been         

instituted with the hope1 and partly    
with the expressed design1 of being an  
economical government1 and it has always
 been ruinous1 because it requires a    
much larger number of partisans than    
other forms of government1 and a smaller
 number of malcontents than other forms 
of government1 and these partisans have 
to be remunerated in one fashion or     
another and the malcontents have to be  
silenced and bought in one way or       
another4  ,democracy1 whether ancient or
 modern1 lives always in terror of      
tyrants who are always imminent or      
thought by it to be imminent4 ,against  
this possible tyrant who would govern   
with an energetic minority1 the         
democracy requires an immense majority  
which it has to bind to it by the grant 
of many favours2 it has also to detach  
from this tyrant the malcontents who    
would be his supporters if it did not   
disarm them by a still more lavish      
distribution of favours4  ,democracy    
requires therefore plenty of money4 ,it 

will find this by despoiling the wealthy
 as much as possible2 but this is a very
 limited source of revenue1 for the     
wealthy are not a numerous class4 ,it   
will find it more easily1 more          
abundantly also1 by exploiting the vices
 of all1 for all is a very numerous     
group4 ,hence the complaisance shown to 
drinking shops1 which1 as ,m4 ,fouillee 
remarks1 it would be more dangerous for 
the ,government to close than to close  
the churches4 ,as the needs of the      
,government increase1 as ,m4 ,fouillee  
predicts1 without much doubt it will    
claim a monopoly in houses of ill-fame  
and in the publication of indecent      
literature2 enterprises in which there  
would be money4 ,and after all1         
tolerating such things for the profit of
 certain traders and annexing them to be
 worked for the profit of the ,state1 is
 surely much the same thing from a moral
 point of view4 ,and the financial      
operation would be much more beneficent 
in the second case than in the first4   

,m4 ,fouillee also argues that reform   
must come from above and not from below1
 and that the movement for regeneration 
can come from above and not from below4 
,i ask nothing better1 but ,i ask also  
how is it going to be done8 ,inasmuch as
 everything depends upon the people1    
who1 what1 can influence the people     
except the people itself8 ,everything   
depends on the people1 by what then can 
it be moved except by a force that is   
innate4 ,we are here confronted--we are 
talking to a philosopher and can make   
use of scientific terms--with a ,kinetes
 akinetos with a motive force which     
causes but does not receive motives4  ,a
 principle has disappeared1 a prejudice 
if you like to call it so1 the prejudice
 in favour of competence4 ,we no longer 
think that the man who understands how  
to do a thing ought to be doing that    
thing1 or ought to be chosen to do it4  
,hence1 not only is everything          
mismanaged1 but it seems impossible by  
any device to handle the matter         

effectually4 ,we see no solution4       
,nietzsche really has a horror of       
democracy2 only like all energetic      
pessimists1 who are not mere triflers1  
he used to say from time to time3 ,there
 are pessimists who are resigned and    
cowardly4 ,we do not wish to be like    
them4 ,when he would not take this view 
he persuaded himself to look at         
democracy through rose-coloured         
spectacles4  ,at times1 looking at the  
matter from an aesthetic point of view1 
he used to say3 ,intercourse with the   
people is as indispensable and          
refreshing as the contemplation of      
vigorous and healthy vegetation1 and    
although this is in flagrant            
contradiction to all he has elsewhere   
said of the bestial flock and the       
inhabitants of the swamp1 the thought   
has a certain amount of sense in it4 ,it
 signifies that instinct is a force1 and
 that every force must be interesting to
 study2 and further that1 as such1 it   
contains an active virtue1 a principle  

of life1 a nucleus of growth4  ,this1   
though vaguely expressed1 is very       
possible4 ,after all the crowd is only  
powerful by reason of numbers1 and      
because it has been decided that numbers
 shall decide4 ,it is an expedient2 but 
an expedient cannot impart force to a   
thing that had it not before4 ,motive   
power1 initiative1 belongs to the man   
who has a plan1 who makes his           
combination to achieve it1 who          
perseveres and is patient and does not  
relinquish pursuit4 ,if he is eliminated
 and reduced to impotence or to a       
minimum of usefulness1 one does not see 
how the crowd1 without him1 can obtain  
its power of initiation4 ,further       
explanation is needed4  ,at another     
time1 ,nietzsche asks whether we ought  
not to respect the right1 which after   
all belongs to the multitude1 to direct 
itself according to an ideal--there are 
of course many ideals--and according to 
the ideal which is its own4 ,ought we to
 refuse to the masses the right to      

search out truth for themselves1 the    
right to believe that they have found it
 when they come upon a faith that seems 
to them vital1 a faith that is to them  
as their very life8 ,the masses are the 
foundation on which all humanity rests1 
the basis of all culture4 ,deprived of  
them1 what would become of the masters8 
,it is to their interest that the masses
 should be happy4 ,let us be patient2   
let us grant to our insurgent slaves1   
our masters for the moment1 the         
enjoyment of illusions which seem       
favourable to them4  ,so ,nietzsche     
argues1 but more often1 for he returns  
on various occasions to this idea1 led  
thereto by his customary aristocratic   
leanings1 he speaks of democracy as of a
 form of decadence1 as a necessary      
prelude to an aristocracy of the future4
 ,a high civilisation can only be built 
upon a wide expanse of territory1 upon a
 healthy and firmly consolidated        
mediocrity4 ,so he wrote in #ahhg4 ,ten 
years earlier he held that slavery had  

been the necessary condition of the high
 civilisation of ,greece and ,rome4 ,the
 only end1 therefore1 which at present1 
provisionally of course but still for a 
long time to come1 we have to expect1   
must be the decadence of                
mankind--general decadence to a level   
mediocrity1 for it is necessary to have 
a wide foundation on which a race of    
strong men can be reared4 ,the decadence
 of the ,european is the great process  
which we cannot hinder1 which we ought  
rather to accelerate4 ,it is the active 
cause at work which gives us hope of    
seeing the rise of a stronger race1 a   
race which will possess in abundance    
those same qualities which are lacking  
to the degenerate vanishing species1    
strength of will1 responsibility1       
self-reliance1 the power of             
concentration4444  ,but how1 out of this
 mediocrity of the crowd1 a mediocrity  
which1 as ,nietzsche says1 is always    
increasing1 by what process natural or  
artificial can a new and superior race  

be created8 ,nietzsche seems to be      
recalling the theory1 very disrespectful
 and very devoid of filial piety1 by    
which ,renan sought to explain his own  
genius4 ,a long line of obscure         
ancestors1 he says1 has economised for  
me a store of intellectual energy1 and  
he jots down in his note book certain   
suggestions1 a little immature but still
 emitting a ray of light4 ,it is absurd1
 he says1 to imagine that this victory  
or survival of values 7that is low      
values1 values1 that is1 that seem to be
 mediocrity7 can be antibiological3 we  
must look for an explanation in the fact
 that they are probably of some vital   
importance to the maintenance of the    
type 'man' in the event of its being    
threatened by a preponderance of the    
feeble-minded and degenerate4 ,perhaps  
if things went otherwise1 man would now 
be an extinct animal4 ,the elevation of 
type is dangerous for the preservation  
of the species4 ,why8 ,strong races are 
wasteful1 we find ourselves here        

confronted with a problem of economy4   
,we perceive1 in this train of          
reasoning1 some inkling of what         
,nietzsche is trying to formulate as his
 solution of the difficulty4 ,what is   
needed must be a natural process1 a vis 
medicatrix naturae4 ,in the process of  
declining and falling1 races practise a 
sort of thrift2 they save and they      
economise4 ,then1 if we may suppose that
 the quantity of energy of intellectual 
and moral power1 i4e41 of human values  
at the disposal of the race is constant1
 the races that so act are creating in  
themselves a reserve which one day will 
irresistibly take shape in a chosen     
class4 ,they are creating in their own  
bosom an elite which will one day       
emerge1 they have conceived all         
unconsciously an aristocracy which will 
one day be born to be their ruler4  ,we 
always find in ,nietzsche the theory of 
,schopenhauer1 the theory of the great  
deceiver who leads the human race by the
 nose and who makes it do and1 as if it 

liked it1 that which it would never do  
if it knew where it was being led4 ,it  
is very possible2 still it remains that 
economy carried to an extreme1 though it
 can lead to a reserve of force1 may    
also lead1 and perhaps much more surely1
 to a condition of anaemia2 the         
annihilation of one set of competent    
people in order to prepare the way for  
races of competent people in the future1
 ,i do not know if this is a game       
inspired by the great deceiver1 but it  
is a game which to me appears dangerous4
 ,we ought to be sure 7and who is sure87
 that the great deceiver does not       
abandon those who abandon themselves4   
,i have often said1 without thinking of 
any metaphysical mythology1 thinking    
indeed of the ambitious people whom we  
meet everywhere1 and thinking only of   
giving them some good advice3 ,the best 
way to get there is to come down4       
,nothing could be more philosophical1   
,nietzsche would reply2 it is even more 
true of peoples than of individuals3 the

 best way for peoples to become one day 
great is to begin by growing smaller4 ,i
 rather doubt it4 ,there is no really   
solid reason to support the theory that 
feebleness cultivated with perseverance 
results in strength4 ,neither ,greece   
nor ,rome supply examples1 nor did the  
democratic republic of ,athens nor the  
democratic ,caesarism of ,rome ever     
succeed in giving birth to an           
aristocracy of competence by a prolonged
 economy of values4   --,they did not   
have the time4--  ,ah yes1 there is     
always that to be said4   ,it would     
perhaps be better to try to put the     
brake on democracy than to encourage    
this process of degeneration on the     
chance of a favourable resurrection4 ,at
 least this is the course which presents
 itself most naturally to our mind1 and 
which seems most consonant with duty4   
,when ,i say put the brake on democracy1
 it must be understood that ,i mean that
 it should put the brake on itself1 for 
nothing else can stop it1 when once it  

has made up its mind4 ,it must be       
persuaded or left alone1 and even       
persuasion is a rash experiment1 for it 
dislikes being persuaded of anything but
 of its own omnipotence4 ,it must be    
persuaded or left alone1 for every other
 method would be still more useless4    
,it must be reminded that forms of      
government perish from the abandonment  
and also from the exaggeration of the   
principle from which their merit is     
derived1 though this is a very          
superannuated maxim2 that they perish by
 an abandonment of their principle      
because that principle is the historical
 reason of their coming into existence1 
and they perish by carrying their       
principle to excess1 because there is no
 such thing as a principle that is      
absolutely good and sufficient in itself
 for regulating the complexity of the   
social machine4  ,what do we understand 
by the principle of a government8 ,it is
 not that which makes it be such and    
such a thing1 but that which makes it   

act in a particular way1 as ,montesquieu
 has remarked2 that is1 the human       
passions which supply the motive forces 
of life4 ,it is clear then that the     
passion for sovereignty1 for equality1  
for incompetence1 is not sufficient to  
give to a government a life which is at 
once complete and strong4  ,it is       
necessary to give to competence its     
part1 or rather it is necessary to give 
competence one part1 for ,i do not wish 
to argue that there is any question of  
right involved1 ,i only affirm that it  
is a social necessity4 ,it is necessary 
that competence1 technical1             
intellectual1 moral competence should be
 assigned its part to play1 even though 
the sovereignty of the people should be 
limited and the principle of equality be
 somewhat abridged thereby4  ,a         
democratic element is essentially       
necessary to a people1 an aristocratic  
element also is essentially necessary to
 a people4  ,a democratic element is    
essentially necessary to a people in    

order that the people should not feel   
itself to be a mere onlooker1 but should
 realise that it is a part and an       
important part of the body social1 and  
that the words ,you are the nation1     
defend it1 have a meaning4 ,otherwise   
the argument of the anti-patriot        
demagogues would be just4 ,what is the  
good of fighting for one set of masters 
against another set1 since it will make 
no difference1 only a change of masters8
  ,a democratic element is required in  
the government of a people1 because it  
is very dangerous that the people should
 be an enigma4 ,it is necessary to know 
what it thinks1 what it feels1 what it  
suffers1 what it desires1 what it fears1
 and what it hopes1 and as this can only
 be learnt from the people itself1 it is
 necessary that it should have a voice  
which can make itself heard4  ,this     
should be done in one way or another1   
either by a ,chamber of its own which   
should be endowed with great authority1 
or by the presence in a single chamber  

of a considerable number of             
representatives of the people1 or by    
plebiscites constitutionally instituted 
as necessary for the revision of the    
constitution and for laws of universal  
interest1 or by the liberty of the press
 and the liberty of association and     
public meeting4 ,this would not perhaps 
be enough1 but it would be almost       
enough4 ,it is necessary that the people
 should be able to make known its wants1
 and to influence the decisions of the  
,government1 in a word its voice should 
be heard and considered4  ,an           
aristocratic element is also necessary  
in a nation and in the government of a  
nation so that all that admits of       
precision shall not be smothered by that
 which is confused2 so that what is     
exact shall not be obscured by what is  
vague1 and so that its firm resolves    
shall not be shaken by vacillating and  
incoherent caprice4  ,sometimes history 
itself makes an aristocracy--a fortunate
 circumstance for a nation6 ,this forms 

a caste more or less exclusive1 it has  
traditions1 traditions more conservative
 of the laws than the laws themselves1  
and it embodies in itself all that there
 is of life1 and energy and growth in   
the soul of a people4 ,sometimes history
 has failed to give us an aristocracy or
 that which history has made has        
disappeared4 ,it is then that the people
 ought to draw one out of itself1 it is 
then its duty to appropriate and        
preserve the high qualities to be found 
in men who have rendered service to the 
,state or whose ancestors have rendered 
service to the ,state1 who have special 
qualifications for each particular      
office and a moral efficiency for every 
form of public service4  ,these         
qualities constitute the acquired       
aptitude of an aristocracy for taking a 
part in the government2 these qualities 
constitute its adaptation to its social 
environment1 and to its special function
 in our social machinery and            
organisation4 ,one might say that it is 

by these qualities that it enters into  
and becomes part of the organism of     
which it is the material4 ,as ,john     
,stuart ,mill has justly remarked1 there
 cannot be an expert1 well-managed      
democracy if democracy will not allow   
the expert to do the work which he alone
 can do4  ,what is wanted then and will 
always be wanted1 even under socialism  
where1 as ,i pointed out1 there will    
still be an aristocracy though a more   
numerous one1 is a blending of democracy
 and aristocracy2 and here1 though he   
wrote a long time ago1 we shall find    
,aristotle is always right for he       
studied in a scientific spirit some     
hundred and fifty different             
constitutions4  ,he is an aristocrat1   
without concealment1 as we have seen1   
but his final conclusions1 whether he is
 speaking of ,lacedaemon1 which he did  
not like1 or of ,carthage1 or in general
 terms1 have always been in favour of   
mixed constitutions as ever the best4   
,there is1 he says1 a manner of         

combining democracy and                 
aristocracy--which consists in so       
arranging matters that both the         
distinguished citizens and the masses   
have what they want4 ,the right of every
 man to aspire to magisterial           
appointments is a democratic principle1 
but the admission of distinguished      
citizens only is an aristocratic        
principle4  ,this blending of democracy 
and aristocracy makes a good            
constitution1 but the union must not be 
one of mere juxtaposition which would   
serve only to put hostile elements      
within striking distance4 ,i said a     
blending but the blending must be a real
 fusion4 ,our need is that in the       
management of public business           
aristocracy and democracy should be     
combined4  ,how8 ,well for many years ,i
 have been saying it and ,i hope ,i may 
live for many years longer to say it    
again4 ,a healthy nation is one in which
 the aristocracy is demophil1 that is a 
lover of the people1 and where the      

people is aristocratic in its leanings4 
,every people where the aristocracy is  
aristocratic and where the democracy is 
democratic is a people destined to      
perish promptly1 because it does not    
understand what a people is1 it has not 
got beyond the stage of knowing what is 
a class and perhaps not even as far as  
that4  ,montesquieu praises highly the  
,athenians and the ,romans for the      
following reason4 ,at ,rome1 although   
the people had the right of elevating   
plebeians to office1 it could never     
bring itself to elect them2 and although
 at ,athens1 it could by the law of     
,aristides1 choose magistrates from all 
classes1 it never happened according to 
,xenophon1 that the lower people        
demanded the election of rulers who     
could injure its safety and its glory4  
,the two instances are identical2 only1 
as far as ,athens is concerned1 it      
signifies nothing1 for at ,athens       
everything was decided by plebiscite and
 in consequence the real rulers of      

,athens were the orators1 in whom the   
people trusted1 who enforced their      
decisions and really governed the city4 
,at ,rome the fact is of great          
importance for it was the elected       
magistrates who governed4  ,republican  
,rome was indeed a country              
aristocratically governed which had1    
however1 a democratic element in its    
constitution1 and this democratic       
element1 up to the time of the civil    
wars1 was itself profoundly             
aristocratic1 just as the aristocracy   
which was always open to an accession of
 members from the plebs was profoundly  
demophil4  ,the institution of patron   
and client1 even in the state of        
degeneracy which overtook it1 is a      
phenomenon which ,i believe is well-nigh
 unique4 ,it shows to what extent two   
classes felt the social necessity1 the  
patriotic necessity of mutual support   
and of a recognition of an identity of  
interest4  ,a nation whose people is    
aristocratic and whose aristocracy is   

demophil is a healthy nation4 ,rome     
succeeded in the world because for five 
hundred years she enjoyed this social   
health4  ,an aristocratic people and a  
people-loving aristocracy4 ,i had long  
believed the formula was of my own      
invention4 ,i have just discovered1 and 
,i am in no way surprised1 that         
,aristotle was before me4 ,he quotes the
 oath which oligarchs take in certain   
cities4 ,i swear to be always the enemy 
of the people and never to counsel any  
thing that ,i do not know to be         
injurious to them4 ,this1 he continues1 
is the very opposite of what they ought 
to do or to pretend to do 444 ,it is a  
political fault which is often committed
 in oligarchies as well as in           
democracies1 and where the multitude has
 control of the laws1 the demagogues    
make this mistake4 ,in their combat     
against the rich1 they always divide the
 ,state into two opposing parties4 ,in a
 democracy1 on the contrary1 the        
,government should profess to speak for 

the rich1 and in oligarchies it should  
profess to speak in favour of the       
people4  ,it is a ,machiavelian counsel4
 ,aristotle seems convinced that        
democrats can only profess to speak for 
the rich and that all we can expect from
 oligarchs is an appearance of speaking 
in favour of the people4 ,nevertheless  
he recognises clearly that for the peace
 and well-being of the commonwealth such
 should be their attitude4  ,there is   
something more profound than this4      
,aristocrats ought not only to appear   
but to be verily favourable to the      
demos1 if they understand the interests 
of aristocracy itself1 for aristocracy  
requires a base4 ,democrats also ought  
not only to appear but to be            
aristocratic if they understand the     
interests of democracy which requires a 
guide4  ,this reciprocity of good       
offices1 this reciprocity of devotion1  
and this combination of effort are as   
necessary in modern as they were in     
ancient republics4 ,it is1 and we must  

coin a word to express it1 a social     
synergy that is wanted4 ,a union of all 
the vitalizing elements is as necessary 
in society as in the family4 ,every     
family that is divided must perish1     
every kingdom that is divided must      
perish4  ,i have said little of royalty 
which only indirectly concerns my       
subject4 ,if we have seen instances of  
the institution of royalty firmly       
established1 it is where the sentiment  
of royalty1 appealing at once both to   
the aristocracy and to the people1 has  
realised that synergy of the whole      
community of which we speak2 it is where
 both1 being united in devotion to one  
object1 are led to be devoted to each   
other by reason of this convergence of  
their wills4 ,eadem velle1 eadem nolle  
amicitia est4  ,there is no need of     
royalty for this4 ,royalty is our       
country itself personified in one man4  
,in the identification of country and   
kingdom1 we can and must arrive at this 
same union of the separate vitalities of

 the nation1 at this same community and 
convergence of will4 ,the humble must   
love their country in loving the great  
and the great must love their country in
 loving the humble2 and so all classes  
must be at one in their hopes and in    
their fears4 ,amicitia sit6     ,,index4
    ,abbeville1 #aae   ,abolition of    
,inheritance1 #bjj1 #bjc   ,academies1  
#bg   ,america1 #agj   ,amoeba1 #ae et  
seq4   ,antisthenes1 #acb   ,aristides1 
law of1 #bcb   ,aristocracy1 #cf1 #ij1  
#acg1 #aei    ---- aptitude for         
government1 #bcj    ---- constitution   
which obeys laws1 #hh    ---- demophil1 
#b1 #bcb1 #bcc    ---- education under1 
#aij    ---- and examination system1    
#agf    ---- fusion with democracy1     
#bca-bcc    ---- impossible without     
merit1 #ca    ---- old men under1 #adg  
---- of ,parliament1 #agb    ----       
permanent senators form1 #eh    ---- and
 religion1 #bje1 #bjg    ---- result of 
indirect election1 #ai    ----- and     
special jurisdictions1 #ih              

,aristophanes1 #abf1 #aej   ,aristotle1 
#ad1 #af1 #ca1 #gj1 #gh1 #he1 #hh1 #abi1
 #aca1 #acd-acf1 #aec1 #bjh1 #bae1      
#bca1 #bcd1 #bce   ,arrondissement1 #dd 
---- scrutin d'1 #hc   ,atheism1 #bjg1  
#bjh   ,athens1 #ag1 #ca1 #cg1 #hc1     
#aac1 #adi1 #afc1 #bbf1 #bcb   ,augier1 
#bac   ,austria1 #di    ,barthelemy1    
,abbe1 #aeg   ,barthou1 ,m41 #i1 #aah   
,belgium1 #agj   ,bismarck1 #bji        
,bonald1 #bja   ,brunetiere1 #ahh       
,busiris1 #aae    ,calas1 #aae          
,carnot1 #ic   ,carthage1 #af1 #bca     
,caucus1 #f   ,chamber of ,deputies1    
#dd1 #aah1 #agb-agd   ,charlemagne1 #adi
   ,charondas1 #hg   ,church1 the1 #ih1 
#bjf   ,cicero1 #gj    ---- de          
,senectute1 #adi   ,civility1 #aef et   
seq4   ,civil ,service1 the1            
appointments to1 #de-ea    ----         
examinations for1 #agf et seq4          
,clergy1 the1 #afi   ,code1 the1 #ge1   
#gf1 #afc   ,colbert1 #dc               
,collectivism1 #bjj-bjc   ,communism1   
#bjj   ,competence par collation1 #ai1  

#bb   ,competitive examination1 #age et 
seq4   ,conciliation ,boards1 #ig       
,concordat1 #bjf   ,constitution of     
#ahgc1 #eg    ---- mixed1 #bca          
,co-optation1 #agf   ,cour de           
,cassation1 #eg1 #aja1 #ajh1 #agf       
,court of ,appeal1 #eg1 #ajg   ,courts1 
ecclesiastical1 #ih    ---- martial1 #ih
   ,criminal procedure1 #hc    ----     
jurisdiction1 #ii    ,dandin1 #ahd      
,dandino-mania1 #ahd   ,decadence1 #bbb1
 #bbc   ,decrees1 #hd1 #ia1 #bjh1 #bji  
,demagogues1 #he1 #aia1 #bac            
,democracy1 ,aristotle on1 #abi-acf     
---- ,athenian1 #ag    ---- children    
under1 #adb-adf    ---- and direct      
government1 #cg et seq4   ,democracy1   
encouragement of incompetence under1    
#cj1 #ib1 #abf    ---- ,english1 #agj   
---- evolution of a modern1 #ah et seq4 
---- fusion with aristocracy1 #bca-bce  
---- governed by decrees1 #cd1 #ia      
---- and imperative mandate1 #cb    ----
 lack of respect under1 #aeh-afa    ----
 legislation under1 #ff1 #gi-ha    ---- 

magistrature1 #aaj-abb    ----          
,montesquieu on1 #acg-aci    ----       
morality under1 #aci    ---- ,nietzsche 
on1 #bbj-bbf    ---- old men under1     
#adf-aec    ---- ,plato on1 #abg-abi    
---- and politicians1 #cd1 #cf    ----  
position of women under1 #adj-adb       
---- principle of1 #ad1 #ae    ---- and 
private enterprise1 #ei-fa    ---- and  
reform1 #baf-bai    ---- ,rousseau on1  
#acf1 #acg    ---- and schoolmasters1   
#aia-bae    ---- and socialism1 #fa-fe  
---- and special jurisdictions1 #ih1 #ii
   ,demos1 #ef1 #hf   ,demosthenes1 #hb 
,deputy1 #ee1 #agd    ---- mayors1 #aai 
,despotism1 principle of1 #ab    ----   
tendency of democracy towards1 #fb1 #fe1
 #if   ,d',etalonde1 #aae   ,diderot1   
#bjg   ,division of labour1 #ae    ---- 
---- in domestic life1 #ada   ,divorce1 
#abe    ,germans1 #fg   ,gerontocracy1  
#adf1 #aec   ,gladstone1 ,mr41 #c1 #e   
,goncourt1 #bja   ,greece1 #bbb1 #bbf   
,greeks1 #ga1 #gc1 #hg   ,greek         
philosophers1 #abf    ,holbach1 #bjg    

,homer1 #ef   ,horace1 #aeb   ,hugo1    
,victor1 #bji    ,ideal legislator1 the1
 #gi   ,imperative mandate1 #cb1 #cc    
,indirect election1 #ai   ,inequalities1
 artificial and natural1 #cj            
,interpellation1 #hc   ,italy1 #agj     
,japy1 ,mme41 #aad   ,jesuits in        
,paraguay1 #fb   ,joannes1 ,baron1 #fh  
,judges1 appointment of1 #df1 #ajj-aab  
---- interpretation of the law1 #afc    
,juge de paix1 #aaa1 #aaf et seq4       
,jurisdiction1 criminal1 #ii    ----    
ecclesiastical1 #ig    ---- military1   
#ig    ---- seignorial1 #ig   ,jury1 the
 #aab-aae1 #afh1 #afi    ,kant1 #aec    
,la ,barre1 #aae   ,lacedaemon1 #aej1   
#bca   ,law1 abolishing primogeniture1  
#abd    ---- abuse of1 #aaj    ---- of  
competence1 #ig    ---- and decrees1    
#hd-ia    ---- degree in1 #aaf    ----  
doctors of1 #ajh    ---- ecclesiastical1
 #abe    ---- emergency1 #hb-hi    ---- 
fundamental1 #hi    ---- governs men1   
#aba    ---- of ,july #abth1 #aije1 #aag
    ---- made by the ideal legislator1  

#fg-gd    ---- made by the people1 #ag1 
#ah1 #be1 #dj1 #aid-aif1 #bcd    ----   
must be ancient and unchanged1 #gg-gi   
---- not the same for rich and poor1    
#aii    ---- permitting divorce1 #abe   
---- of proportion1 #ad    ----         
questions of1 #aac1 #afb    ---- of     
,sunday observance1 #ge1 #gf    ---- and
 tradition1 #bcj   ,legal profession1   
the1 #fj   ,legislation1 ancient1 #hg   
---- ,english1 #b1 #d    ---- party1    
#ha-hb    ---- philanthropic1 #f    ----
 predatory1 #h    ---- requires special 
knowledge1 #ah1 #fg   ,legislator1      
essential qualifications for1 #ff-ha    
---- ,greek1 #gc   ,lestranger1 ,m4     
,marcel1 #afd1 #aff   ,liberty of       
association1 #aid1 #aif   ,louis ,,xiv1 
#ba1 #bb1 #aej1 #aie1 #bjd1 #bji    ----
    ,,xv1 #aej    ----    ,,xvi1 #acc   
,louvois1 #dc   ,lycurgus1 #b1 #gc1 #hg 
,lynching1 #afh1 #afi    ,machiavel1 #ga
   ,machiavelian counsel1 #bcd          
,magistracy1 hereditary system advocated
 for1 #aje1 #afc1 #afh   ,magistrates1  

election of1 #dh1 #ajj-aab    ----      
incompetence of1 #afd-afh    ----       
subservience to government1 #afc        
,mayors1 #aag   ,medical examinations1  
#ahj    ---- profession1 #fj   ,mill1   
,john ,stuart1 #bcj   ,minister of      
,agriculture1 #id    ---- of ,commerce1 
#ib    ---- of ,education1 #ib1 #baa    
,minister of ,interior1 #baa    ---- of 
,justice1 #gf1 #aah-abj    ---- of      
,navy1 #ib    ---- of ,war1 #ib1 #ic    
,miscarriage of justice1 #afe           
,monarchy1 old men under1 #adg    ----  
principle of1 #ab1 #fb1 #if             
,montesquieu1 #d1 #ab1 #ad1 #bh1 #cg1   
#dd-dg1 #ff-gj1 #gd-hi1 #ajc-aje1 #abc1 
#acg1  #ach1 #aej-aef1 #aic1 #bbg1 #bcb 
,moral effect of law1 #abe    ----      
order1 #bag   ,morals1 high standard of1
 #aej    ---- laxity of1 #aee    ----   
private1 #aci1 #adj    ---- public1     
#abc1 #abd1 #aci   ,more1 ,thomas1 #ga  
,moses1 #fg1 #bji    ,napoleon1 #ac1    
#aje1 #bji   ,nationalisation1 #fj      
,nietzsche1 #adg1 #ahg1 #bbj-bbe        

,oligarchy1 #fc1 #abh1 #adg   ,olympiad1
 #hg   ,ostracism1 #acc    ,paraguay1   
#fb   ,parental authority1 #adc         
,parliament1 #agb   ,party system under 
,socialism1 #fa   ,pascal1 #ajg1 #aeg   
,patriotism1 #ab1 #bad   ,peel1 ,sir    
,r41 #c   ,periander1 #acb   ,peter the 
,great1 #abd   ,phaedo1 personification 
of laws in1 #hg   ,plato1 #ga1 #aje1    
#abf-abi1 #ach1 #adj1 #aec   ,plautus1  
#aej   ,plebiscite1 #bd1 #agc   ,pli    
,professionnel1 ,le1 #afd   ,pnyx1 the1 
#cg   ,politeness1 #aef et seq4         
,politician1 definition of1 #cd    ---- 
democracy's need of1 #ce1 #ea    ---- as
 schoolmaster1 #bab   ,prefet1 #fb-ee1  
#agc1 #bab   ,president of the ,chamber1
 #aaj    ---- of the ,council1 #ic      
---- of the ,republic1 #db1 #eg         
,primogeniture1 #abd                    
,procureur-general1 #eb1 #ec1 #aai-abb  
,proudhon1 #gc   ,public officials1     
appointment of1 #dc-ea    ---- under    
,socialism1 #bja   ,purchase system1    
the1 #ajc    ,quinet1 ,edgar1 #ac       

,rabelais1 #aae   ,republic1 #ab1 #ac1  
#gc   ,renaissance1 #adi   ,renan1 #bbc 
,renouvier1 #ej   ,revocation of the    
,edict of ,nantes1 #bb   ,rhedi1 #gh    
,robespierre1 #bjg1 #bjh   ,roman       
,republic1 #ac1 #aac1 #bjd1 #bcc        
,romans1 the1 #fh1 #hg1 #bcb   ,rome1   
#abd1 #adi1 #bbb1 #bbf1 #bcb-bcd        
,rousseau1 #cb1 #gb1 #acf-ach1 #adi1    
#aej1 #bjg1 #bjh   ,royalty1 #acg1 #bhf 
---- democratic1 #ah    ,st4 ,cyr1 #agg 
,st4 ,louis1 #gd   ,schopenhauer1 #bbd  
,scrutin de liste1 #hc1 #aab1 and note  
---- d'arrondissement1 #hc   ,senate1   
#ch1 #eh1 #aag1 #aah1 #agb-age          
,senators1 #ee1 #agb-age    ----        
irremovable1 #eg   ,seneca1 #abi        
,socialism1 #fa-fe1 #bca   ,socrates1   
#ah1 #hh    ---- on democracy1 #add     
,solon1 #fg1 #gc   ,sovereignty of the  
,people1 #dj1 #de1 #ef1 #agg1 #aid-aih1 
#bjd-bji1 #bad   ,specialisation of     
functions1 #ae-ah1 #ca   ,special       
jurisdictions1 #ig1 #ih   ,state control
 of children1 #add    ---- ---- of      

magistrates1 #ajj1aja    ---- ---- of   
private enterprise1 #fj-fa    ----      
danger of eminent man to1 #aca-acg      
---- intervention to restore public     
morality1 #bag-bai   ,state policy1 #aaj
    ---- services rendered to1 #bcj     
---- within a ,state1 #aif   ,steinheil 
case1 #aad   ,suidas1 #ajc1 #aje        
,sunday observance1 #ge   ,sylla1 #gc   
,synergy1 #bce1 #bcf    ,terence1 #aej  
,thrasybulus1 #acb   ,toulouse1 #aae    
,tyranny1 #ace    ,universal suffrage1  
#ba1 #agc-age   ,university degrees1    
#bj1 #aha-ahc   ,upper chamber1         
suggestions for strong1 #agd   ,usbek1  
#gh    ,virtue1 civic1 #ad1 #ajc1 #ajd  
---- the principle of a republic1 #ab1  
#ac   ,voltaire1 #ajc-aje1 #aaf         
,women1 their position in a democracy1  
#adj-adc    ,xenophon1 #abf1 #bcc       
,young man1 ,horace's description of1   
#aeb     ,printed by ,sherratt  ,hughes1
 ,london and ,manchester4