{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_53799/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_53799","id":"gutenberg_53799","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53799","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Sociology","Positivism"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n\nItalicized text is enclosed in _underscores_.\n\nNarrow text within square brackets are sidenotes; numbers within square\nbrackets refer to footnotes at the end of this eBook.\n\n\u201cV^e\u201d in Footnote 3 indicates that the \u201ce\u201d is a superscript.\n\nOther notes will be found at the end of this eBook.\n\n\n\n\n    The New Universal Library\n\n\nA GENERAL VIEW OF POSITIVISM\n\n\n\n\n    A GENERAL VIEW\n    OF POSITIVISM\n\n    Translated from the French of\n    AUGUSTE COMTE\n\n    By J. H. BRIDGES, M.B.\n    _Late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford_\n\n    A New Edition, with an Introduction (1908), by\n    FREDERIC HARRISON\n\n    And the Additional Notes in the last French\n    Edition (Paris, 1907)\n\n    [Illustration]\n\n    LONDON\n    GEORGE ROUTLEDGE & SONS LIMITED\n    NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.\n\n\n\n\n_Published by the kind consent of Mrs. Bridges and the Positivist\nCommittee, to whom the copyright of this translation belongs._\n\n\n\n\n    Republic of the West\n    Order and Progress\n\n    A GENERAL VIEW OF\n    POSITIVISM\n\n    Or,\n\n    _SUMMARY EXPOSITION OF THE\n    SYSTEM OF THOUGHT\n    AND LIFE_\n\n  Adapted to the Great Western Republic, formed of the Five Advanced\n  Nations, the French, Italian, Spanish, British and German, which,\n  since the time of Charlemagne, have always constituted a Political\n  Whole\n\n\n  R\u00e9organiser, sans dieu ni roi, par le culte syst\u00e9matique de\n  l\u2019Humanit\u00e9.\n\n  Nul n\u2019a droit qu\u2019\u00e0 faire son devoir.\n\n  L\u2019esprit doit toujours \u00eatre le ministre du coeur, et jamais son\n  esclave.\n\n\n  Reorganisation, irrespectively of God or king, by the worship of\n  Humanity, systematically adopted.\n\n  Man\u2019s only right is to do his duty.\n\n  The Intellect should always be the servant of the Heart, and should\n  never be its slave.\n\n\n    By\n    AUGUSTE COMTE\n\n    _Author of_ \u2018_System of Positive Philosophy_\u2019\n    PARIS, 1848\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nBy FREDERIC HARRISON\n\n\nAlthough Positivism has been pretty widely discussed of late, not only\nby those interested in philosophy and religion, but by the general\nreader and the public press, perhaps but few of them, whether readers\nor critics, have exactly grasped the full meaning of it as a system at\nonce of thought and of life. The vast range of the ground it covers and\nthe technical, allusive, and close style of Comte\u2019s writings in the\noriginal have made it difficult to master the subject as a whole. It\nhas accordingly been thought that the time has come to add to the \u2018New\nUniversal Library\u2019 a translation of _The General View of Positivism_,\ni.e., the careful summary of the _Positive Polity_ which Auguste Comte\nprefixed to the four volumes of his principal work. The translation\nwhich was published by Dr. J.\u00a0H. Bridges in 1865 is at the same time\na most accurate version by one of Comte\u2019s earliest followers, and\nalso it is turned in an easy and simpler style, with the references\nand allusions explained, marginal headings to the paragraphs, and a\ncomplete analysis of the contents.\n\nPositivism is not simply a system of Philosophy; nor is it simply a new\nform of Religion; nor is it simply a scheme of social regeneration.\nIt partakes of all of these, and professes to harmonize them under\none dominant conception that is equally philosophic and social.\n\u2018Its primary object,\u2019 writes Comte, \u2018is twofold: to generalize our\nscientific conceptions and to systematize the art of social life.\u2019\nAccordingly Comte\u2019s ideal embraces the three main elements of which\nhuman life consists--Thoughts, Feelings and Actions.\n\nNow it is clear that no such comprehensive system was ever before\noffered to the world. Neither the Gospel nor any known type of religion\nundertook to give a synthetic grouping of the Sciences. No synthetic\nscheme of philosophy ever attempted to correlate religion, politics,\nart, and industry. No system of Socialism, ancient or modern, started\nwith mathematics and led up to an ideal of a human devotion to duty,\nwith a ritual of worship, both public and private.\n\nNow Comte\u2019s famous _Positive Polity_ did attempt this gigantic task.\nAnd the novelty and extent of such a work explains and accounts for the\nextreme difficulty met with by readers of the original French, and also\nfor the fascination which it has maintained more than fifty years after\nthe author\u2019s death. It has been talked about, criticized, and even\nridiculed, with an ignorance of its true character which can only be\nexcused by the abstract and severe form in which Comte thought right to\ncondense his thoughts. Comte was primarily a mathematician, and neither\nDescartes nor Newton troubled themselves about \u2018the general reader\u2019.\nKepler, they say, declared himself satisfied if he had one convert\nin a century; and philosophers have seldom had justice done them\nuntil some generations have passed. The difficulties presented by the\nscientific form of Comte\u2019s works have been obviated for English readers\nby the versions of his English followers, which are at once literal\ntranslations, analyses, and elucidations. For the \u2018general reader\u2019\nnothing could be more serviceable than Bridges\u2019 clear presentation of\nComte\u2019s own \u2018general view\u2019, or summary of his system.\n\nThe translation itself is a literary masterpiece. It renders an\nextremely abstract and complex French type of philosophical dogmatism\ninto easy and simple English, whilst at the same time preserving and\neven elucidating the somewhat cryptic allusions and _nuances_ of the\noriginal. The thought in the French is full, pregnant, and suggestive,\nat once subtle and abstract, and rich with words of a new coinage--such\nas _altruism_, _sociology_, _dynamics_ (i.e., history), and old\nwords used in a special sense. This difficulty Dr. Bridges surmounts\nby breaking up the involved sentences, supplying names and facts\nindirectly referred to, and by transferring technical language into\npopular English. The success of the translation has been proved by the\nthousands of copies sold in the original 12mo edition of 1865, in the\n8vo edition of 1875, and in the stereotyped reprint of 1881.\n\nA pathetic interest attaches to the history of the translation. In\n1860 Dr. Bridges, just settled as a physician in Melbourne, lost his\nyoung wife by fever. He at once returned to England, bringing the\nremains of his wife for interment in the family graveyard in Suffolk.\nIn those days of sailing vessels the voyage home round Cape Horn\noccupied at least three months. Dr. Bridges resolved to conquer his\nsorrow, shut himself in his cabin during the voyage home and completed\nthe translation (in 430 pages of print) within the time at sea:--\n\n    The sad mechanic exercise,\n    Like dull narcotics, numbing pain.\n\nAuguste Comte always spoke of the _Positive Polity_ as \u2018his principal\nwork\u2019. The _Discours sur l\u2019Ensemble_, or _General View of Positivism_,\nformed the introduction to the four volumes. It forms a summary of the\nentire work, and it is indeed a systematic application of the doctrine\nto the actual condition of society. As the _Polity_, taken as a whole,\nprofesses to embody a set of doctrines for the regulation of thought\nand life, the present _Introduction_ is designed to show the need of\nsuch a body of doctrine, the result that they would produce, and the\nmode in which they are likely to work. Thus, one who desires to see in\none view the social purpose which Positivism proposes to effect would\nfind it in no single volume better than in this treatise.\n\nThe work consists of six chapters, treating Positivism respectively\nin its intellectual aspect, its social aspect, its influence on the\nworking classes, on women, on art, and on religion. In other words it\nillustrates the application of the system to Philosophy, Politics,\nIndustry, The Family, Poetry and The Future. It opens with a comparison\nof Positivist doctrines with those of the leading extant philosophies.\nIt closes with a picture of society should those doctrines be realized.\nIt is thus both a criticism of current theories, and an utopia of a\npossible Future. Of the intermediate chapters, the first deals with the\nprincipal changes proposed in our actual political system: the next\nchapter deals with the changes proposed in our present social system.\nThen come the last two chapters, dealing with the principal agents,\nArt, Poetry and Religion, by which those changes may be promoted. The\nbook is therefore a practical introduction to the subject as a whole;\nfor it sets forth the _aim_ of Positivism as a system, and then how it\nseeks to effect that aim.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n    INTELLECTUAL CHARACTER OF POSITIVISM                               8\n\n  The object of Philosophy is to present a systematic view of\n  human life as a basis for modifying its imperfections--The\n  Theological Synthesis failed to include the practical side of\n  human nature--But the Positive spirit originated in practical\n  life--In human nature, and therefore in the Positive system,\n  Affection is the preponderating element--The proper function\n  of Intellect is the service of the Social Sympathies--Under\n  Theology the Intellect was the slave of the Heart; under\n  Positivism, its servant--The subordination of the Intellect to\n  the Heart is the subjective principle of Positivism--Objective\n  basis of the system: Order of the external World, as revealed\n  by Science--By it the selfish affections are controlled; the\n  unselfish strengthened--Our conception of this External Order\n  has been gradually growing from the earliest times, and is but\n  just complete--Even where not modifiable, its influence on the\n  character is of the greatest value--But in most cases we can modify\n  it; and in these the knowledge of it forms the systematic basis\n  of human action--The chief difficulty of the Positive Synthesis\n  was to complete our conception of the External Order by extending\n  it to Social Phenomena--By the discovery of sociological laws\n  social questions are made paramount; and thus our _subjective\n  principle_ is satisfied without danger to free thought--Distinction\n  between Abstract and Concrete laws. It is the former only\n  that we require for the purpose before us--In our Theory of\n  Development the required Synthesis of Abstract conceptions already\n  exists--Therefore we are in a position to proceed at once with\n  the work of social regeneration--Error of identifying Positivism\n  with Atheism, Materialism, Fatalism, or Optimism. Atheism, like\n  Theology, discusses insoluble mysteries--Materialism is due to the\n  encroachment of the lower sciences on the domain of the higher,\n  an error which Positivism rectifies--Nor is Positivism fatalist,\n  since it asserts the External Order to be modifiable--The charge\n  of Optimism applies to Theology rather than to Positivism. The\n  Positivist judges of all historical actions _relatively_, but does\n  not justify them indiscriminately--The word _Positive_ connotes all\n  the highest intellectual attributes, and will ultimately have a\n  moral significance.\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n    THE SOCIAL ASPECT OF POSITIVISM                                   64\n\n  The relation of Positivism to the French Revolution--The\n  negative or destructive phase of the Revolution stimulated\n  the desire of Progress, and consequently the study of social\n  phenomena--The constructive phase of the Revolution. The first\n  attempts to construct failed, being based on destructive\n  principles--Counter-revolution from 1794 to 1830--Political\n  stagnation between 1830 and 1848--The present position, 1848-1850.\n  Republicanism involves the great principle of subordinating\n  Politics to Morals--It gives prominence to the problem of\n  reconciling Order and Progress--It brings the metaphysical\n  revolutionary schools into discredit--And it proves to all the\n  necessity of a true spiritual power; a body of thinkers whose\n  business is to study and to teach principles, holding aloof\n  from political action--The need of a spiritual power is common\n  to the whole Republic of Western Europe--This Republic consists\n  of the Italian, Spanish, British, and German populations,\n  grouped round France as their centre--Relation of Positivism\n  to the medi\u00e6val system, to which we owe the first attempt\n  to separate Spiritual from Temporal power--But the medi\u00e6val\n  attempt was premature; and Positivism will renew and complete\n  it--The Ethical system of Positivism--Subjection of Self-love\n  to Social love is the great ethical problem. The Social state\n  of itself favours this result; but it may be hastened by\n  organized and conscious effort--Intermediate between Self-love\n  and universal Benevolence are the domestic affections: filial,\n  fraternal, conjugal, paternal--Personal virtues placed upon a\n  social basis--Moral education consists partly of scientific\n  demonstration of ethical truth, but still more of culture of the\n  higher sympathies--Organization of Public Opinion--Commemoration\n  of great men--The political motto of Positivism: Order and\n  Progress--Progress, the development of Order--Analysis of Progress:\n  material, physical, intellectual, and moral--Application of our\n  principles to actual politics. All government must for the present\n  be provisional--Danger of attempting political reconstruction\n  before spiritual--Politically what is wanted is Dictatorship, with\n  liberty of speech and discussion--Such a dictatorship would be a\n  step towards the separation of spiritual and temporal power--The\n  motto of 1830, _Liberty and Public Order_--Liberty should be\n  extended to Education--Order demands centralization--Intimate\n  connexion of Liberty with Order.\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n    THE ACTION OF POSITIVISM UPON THE WORKING CLASSES                140\n\n  Positivism will not for the present recommend itself to the\n  governing classes, so much as to the People--The working man who\n  accepts his position is favourably situated for the reception\n  of comprehensive principles and generous sympathies--This the\n  Convention felt; but they encouraged the People to seek political\n  supremacy, for which they are not fit--It is only in exceptional\n  cases that the People can be really \u2018sovereign\u2019--The truth\n  involved in the expression is that the well-being of the people\n  should be the one great object of government--The People\u2019s\n  function is to assist the spiritual power in modifying the action\n  of government--Their combined efforts result in the formation\n  of Public Opinion--Public opinion involves, (1) principles of\n  social conduct, (2) their acceptance by society at large, (3) an\n  organ through which to enunciate them--Working men\u2019s clubs--All\n  three conditions of Public Opinion exist, but have not yet\n  been combined--Spontaneous tendencies of the people in a right\n  direction. Their Communism--Its new title of Socialism--Property\n  is in its nature social, and needs control--But Positivism\n  rejects the Communist solution of the Problem. Property is to\n  be controlled by moral not legal agencies--Individualization\n  of functions as necessary as co-operation--Industry requires\n  its captains as well as War--Communism is deficient in the\n  historical spirit--In fact, as a system it is worthless, though\n  prompted by noble feelings--Property is a public trust, not to\n  be interfered with legally--Inheritance favourable to its right\n  employment--Intellect needs moral control as much as wealth--Action\n  of organized public opinion upon Capitalists. Strikes--Public\n  Opinion must be based upon a sound system of Education--Education\n  has two stages; from birth to puberty, from puberty to adolescence.\n  The first, consisting of physical and esthetic training, to\n  be given at home--The second part consists of public lectures\n  on the Sciences, from Mathematics to Sociology--Travels of\n  Apprentices--Concentration of study--Governmental assistance\n  not required, except for certain special institutions, and\n  this only as a provisional measure--We are not ripe for this\n  system at present; and Government must not attempt to hasten its\n  introduction--Intellectual attitude of the people. Emancipation\n  from theological belief--From metaphysical doctrines--Their\n  mistaken preference of literary and rhetorical talent to real\n  intellectual power--Moral attitude of the people. The workman\n  should regard himself as a public functionary--Ambition of power\n  and wealth must be abandoned--The working classes are the best\n  guarantee for Liberty and Order--It is from them that we shall\n  obtain the dictatorial power which is provisionally required.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n    THE INFLUENCE OF POSITIVISM UPON WOMEN                           227\n\n  Women represent the affective element in our nature, as\n  philosophers and people represent the intellectual and practical\n  elements--Women have stood aloof from the modern movement, because\n  of its anti-historic and destructive character--But they will\n  sympathize with constructive tendencies; and will distinguish\n  sound philosophy from scientific specialities--Women\u2019s position\n  in society. Like philosophers and people, their part is not to\n  govern, but to modify--The united action of philosophers, women,\n  and proletaries constitutes Moral Force--Superiority of the\n  new spiritual power to the old. Self-regarding tendencies of\n  Catholic doctrine--The spirit of Positivism, on the contrary,\n  is essentially social. The Heart and the Intellect mutually\n  strengthen each other--Intellectual and moral affinities of women\n  with Positivism--Catholicism purified love, but did not directly\n  strengthen it--Women\u2019s influence over the working classes and their\n  teachers--Their social influence in the _salon_--But the Family\n  is their principal sphere of action--Woman\u2019s mission as a wife.\n  Conjugal love an education for universal sympathy--Conditions of\n  marriage. Indissoluble monogamy--Perpetual widowhood--Woman\u2019s\n  mission as a mother--Education of children belongs to mothers.\n  They only can guide the development of character--Modern sophisms\n  about Woman\u2019s rights. The domesticity of her life follows from\n  the principle of Separation of Powers--The position of the sexes\n  tends to differentiation rather than identity--Woman to be\n  maintained by Man--The education of women should be identical\n  with that of men--Women\u2019s privileges. Their mission is in\n  itself a privilege--They will receive honour and worship from\n  men--Development of medi\u00e6val chivalry--The practice of Prayer, so\n  far from disappearing, is purified and strengthened in Positive\n  religion--The worship of Woman a preparation for the worship of\n  Humanity--Exceptional women. Joan of Arc--It is for women to\n  introduce Positivism into the Southern nations.\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\n    THE RELATION OF POSITIVISM TO ART                                304\n\n  Positivism when complete is as favourable to Imagination, as, when\n  incomplete, it was unfavourable to it--Esthetic talent is for the\n  adornment of life, not for its government--The political influence\n  of literary men a deplorable sign and source of anarchy--Theory\n  of Art--Art is the idealized representation of Fact--Poetry is\n  intermediate between Philosophy and Polity--Art calls each element\n  of our nature into harmonious action--Three stages in the esthetic\n  process: Imitation, Idealization, Expression--Classification of\n  the arts on the principle of decreasing generality, and increasing\n  intensity--Poetry--Music--Painting. Sculpture. Architecture--The\n  conditions favourable to Art have never yet been combined--Neither\n  in Polytheism--Nor under the Medi\u00e6val system--Much less in\n  modern times--Under Positivism the conditions will all be\n  favourable. There will be fixed principles, and a nobler moral\n  culture--Predisposing influence of Education--Relation of Art\n  to Religion--Idealization of historical types--Art requires the\n  highest education; but little special instruction--Artists as\n  a class will disappear. Their function will be appropriated by\n  the philosophic priesthood--Identity of esthetic and scientific\n  genius--Women\u2019s poetry--People\u2019s poetry--Value of Art in the\n  present crisis--Construction of normal types on the basis furnished\n  by philosophy--Pictures of the Future of Man--Contrasts with the\n  Past.\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\n    CONCLUSION. THE RELIGION OF HUMANITY                             355\n\n  Recapitulation of the results obtained--Humanity is the centre\n  to which every aspect of Positivism converges--With the\n  discovery of sociological laws, a synthesis on the basis of\n  Science becomes possible, science being now concentrated on\n  the study of Humanity--Statical aspects of Humanity--Dynamical\n  aspects--Inorganic and organic sciences elevated by their connexion\n  with the supreme science of Humanity--The new religion is even\n  more favourable to Art than to Science--Poetic portraiture of\n  the new Supreme Being, and contrast with the old--Organization\n  of festivals, representing statical and dynamical aspects of\n  Humanity--Worship of the dead. Commemoration of their service--All\n  the arts may co-operate in the service of religion--Positivism\n  the successor of Christianity, and surpasses it--Superiority of\n  Positive morality--Rise of the new Spiritual power--Temporal power\n  will always be necessary, but its action will be modified by the\n  spiritual--Substitution of duties for rights--Consensus of the\n  Social Organism--Continuity of the past with the present--Necessity\n  of a spiritual power to study and teach these truths, and thus\n  to govern men by persuasion, instead of by compulsion--Nutritive\n  functions of Humanity, performed by Capitalists, as the temporal\n  power--These are modified by the cerebral functions, performed\n  by the spiritual power--Women and priests to have their material\n  subsistence guaranteed--Normal relation of priests, people, and\n  capitalists--We are not yet ripe for the normal state. But the\n  revolution of 1848 is a step towards it--First revolutionary motto;\n  Liberty and Equality--Second motto; Liberty and Order--Third\n  motto; Order and Progress--Provisional policy for the period of\n  transition--Popular dictatorship with freedom of speech--Positive\n  Committee for Western Europe--Occidental navy--International\n  coinage--Occidental school--Flag for the Western Republic--Colonial\n  and foreign Associates of the Committee, the action of which will\n  ultimately extend to the whole human race--Conclusion. Perfection\n  of the Positivist ideal--Corruption of Monotheism.\n\n\n\n\nA GENERAL VIEW OF POSITIVISM\n\n  \u2018We tire of thinking and even of acting; we never tire of loving.\u2019\n\n\nIn the following series of systematic essays upon Positivism the\nessential principles of the doctrine are first considered; I then\npoint out the agencies by which its propagation will be effected; and\nI conclude by describing certain additional features indispensable to\nits completeness. My treatment of these questions will of course be\nsummary; yet it will suffice, I hope, to overcome several excusable but\nunfounded prejudices. It will enable any competent reader to assure\nhimself that the new general doctrine aims at something more than\nsatisfying the Intellect; that it is in reality quite as favourable to\nFeeling and even to Imagination.\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY REMARKS\n\nPositivism consists essentially of a Philosophy and a Polity. These can\nnever be dissevered; the former being the basis, and the latter the\nend of one comprehensive system, in which our intellectual faculties\nand our social sympathies are brought into close correlation with\neach other. For, in the first place, the science of Society, besides\nbeing more important than any other, supplies the only logical and\nscientific link by which all our varied observations of phenomena\ncan be brought into one consistent whole[1]. Of this science it is\neven more true than of any of the preceding sciences, that its real\ncharacter cannot be understood without explaining its exact relation in\nall general features with the art corresponding to it. Now here we find\na coincidence which is assuredly not fortuitous. At the very time when\nthe theory of society is being laid down, an immense sphere is opened\nfor the application of that theory; the direction, namely, of the\nsocial regeneration of Western Europe. For, if we take another point of\nview, and look at the great crisis of modern history, as its character\nis displayed in the natural course of events, it becomes every day\nmore evident how hopeless is the task of reconstructing political\ninstitutions without the previous remodelling of opinion and of life.\nTo form then a satisfactory synthesis of all human conceptions is the\nmost urgent of our social wants: and it is needed equally for the sake\nof Order and of Progress. During the gradual accomplishment of this\ngreat philosophical work, a new moral power will arise spontaneously\nthroughout the West, which, as its influence increases, will lay down\na definite basis for the reorganization of society. It will offer a\ngeneral system of education for the adoption of all civilized nations,\nand by this means will supply in every department of public and\nprivate life fixed principles of judgment and of conduct. Thus the\nintellectual movement and the social crisis will be brought continually\ninto close connexion with each other. Both will combine to prepare the\nadvanced portion of humanity for the acceptance of a true spiritual\npower, a power more coherent, as well as more progressive, than the\nnoble but premature attempt of mediaeval Catholicism.\n\nThe primary object, then, of Positivism is two-fold: to generalize our\nscientific conceptions, and to systematize the art of social life.\nThese are but two aspects of one and the same problem. They will form\nthe subjects of the two first chapters of this work. I shall first\nexplain the general spirit of the new philosophy. I shall then show its\nnecessary connexion with the whole course of that vast revolution which\nis now about to terminate under its guidance in social reconstruction.\n\nThis will lead us naturally to another question. The regenerating\ndoctrine cannot do its work without adherents; in what quarter should\nwe hope to find them? Now, with individual exceptions of great value,\nwe cannot expect the adhesion of any of the upper classes in society.\nThey are all more or less under the influence of baseless metaphysical\ntheories, and of aristocratic self-seeking. They are absorbed in blind\npolitical agitation and in disputes for the possession of the useless\nremnants of the old theological and military system. Their action only\ntends to prolong the revolutionary state indefinitely, and can never\nresult in true social renovation.\n\nWhether we regard its intellectual character or its social objects, it\nis certain that Positivism must look elsewhere for support. It will\nfind a welcome in those classes only whose good sense has been left\nunimpaired by our vicious system of education, and whose generous\nsympathies are allowed to develop themselves freely. It is among\nwomen, therefore, and among the working classes that the heartiest\nsupporters of the new doctrine will be found. It is intended, indeed,\nultimately for all classes of society. But it will never gain much real\ninfluence over the higher ranks till it is forced upon their notice by\nthese powerful patrons. When the work of spiritual reorganization is\ncompleted, it is on them that its maintenance will principally depend;\nand so too, their combined aid is necessary for its commencement.\nHaving but little influence in political government, they are the more\nlikely to appreciate the need of a moral government, the special object\nof which it will be to protect them against the oppressive action of\nthe temporal power.\n\nIn the third chapter, therefore, I shall explain the mode in which\nphilosophers and working men will co-operate. Both have been prepared\nfor this coalition by the general course which modern history has\ntaken, and it offers now the only hope we have of really decisive\naction. We shall find that the efforts of Positivism to regulate and\ndevelop the natural tendencies of the people, make it, even from the\nintellectual point of view, more coherent and complete.\n\nBut there is another and a more unexpected source from which Positivism\nwill obtain support; and not till then will its true character and\nthe full extent of its constructive power be appreciated. I shall\nshow in the fourth chapter how eminently calculated is the Positive\ndoctrine to raise and regulate the social condition of women. It is\nfrom the feminine aspect only that human life, whether individually or\ncollectively considered, can really be comprehended as a whole. For the\nonly basis on which a system really embracing all the requirements\nof life can be formed, is the subordination of intellect to social\nfeeling: a subordination which we find directly represented in the\nwomanly type of character, whether regarded in its personal or social\nrelations.\n\nAlthough these questions cannot be treated fully in the present work, I\nhope to convince my readers that Positivism is more in accordance with\nthe spontaneous tendencies of the people and of women than Catholicism,\nand is therefore better qualified to institute a spiritual power. It\nshould be observed that the ground on which the support of both these\nclasses is obtained is, that Positivism is the only system which can\nsupersede the various subversive schemes that are growing every day\nmore dangerous to all the relations of domestic and social life. Yet\nthe tendency of the doctrine is to elevate the character of both of\nthese classes; and it gives a most energetic sanction to all their\nlegitimate aspirations.\n\nThus it is that a philosophy originating in speculations of the most\nabstract character, is found applicable not merely to every department\nof practical life, but also to the sphere of our moral nature. But\nto complete the proof of its universality I have still to speak of\nanother very essential feature. I shall show, in spite of prejudices\nwhich exist very naturally on this point, that Positivism is eminently\ncalculated to call the Imaginative faculties into exercise. It is by\nthese faculties that the unity of human nature is most distinctly\nrepresented: they are themselves intellectual, but their field lies\nprincipally in our moral nature, and the result of their operation is\nto influence the active powers. The subject of women treated in the\nfourth chapter, will lead me by a natural transition to speak in the\nfifth of the Esthetic aspects of Positivism. I shall attempt to show\nthat the new doctrine by the very fact of embracing the whole range of\nhuman relations in the spirit of reality, discloses the true theory of\nArt, which has hitherto been so great a deficiency in our speculative\nconceptions. The principle of the theory is that, in co-ordinating the\nprimary functions of humanity, Positivism places the Idealities of the\npoet midway between the Ideas of the philosopher and the Realities of\nthe statesman. We see from this theory how it is that the poetical\npower of Positivism cannot be manifested at present. We must wait\nuntil moral and mental regeneration has advanced far enough to awaken\nthe sympathies which naturally belong to it, and on which Art in its\nrenewed state must depend for the future. The first mental and social\nshock once passed, Poetry will at last take her proper rank. She will\nlead Humanity onward towards a future which is now no longer vague and\nvisionary, while at the same time she enables us to pay due honour to\nall phases of the past. The great object which Positivism sets before\nus individually and socially, is the endeavour to become more perfect.\nThe highest importance is attached therefore to the imaginative\nfaculties, because in every sphere with which they deal they stimulate\nthe sense of perfection. Limited as my explanations in this work must\nbe, I shall be able to show that Positivism, while opening out a new\nand wide field for art, supplies in the same spontaneous way new means\nof expression.\n\nI shall thus have sketched with some detail the true character of\nthe regenerating doctrine. All its principal aspects will have been\nconsidered. Beginning with its philosophical basis, I pass by natural\ntransitions to its political purpose; thence to its action upon the\npeople, its influence with women, and lastly, to its esthetic power.\nIn concluding this work, which is but the introduction to a larger\ntreatise, I have only to speak of the conception which unites all these\nvarious aspects. As summed up in the positivist motto, _Love, Order,\nProgress_, they lead us to the conception of Humanity, which implicitly\ninvolves and gives new force to each of them. Rightly interpreting this\nconception, we view Positivism at last as a complete and consistent\nwhole. The subject will naturally lead us to speak in general terms of\nthe future progress of social regeneration, as far as the history of\nthe past enables us to foresee it. The movement originates in France,\nand is limited at first to the great family of Western nations. I shall\nshow that it will afterwards extend, in accordance with definite laws,\nto the rest of the white race, and finally to the other two great races\nof man.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE INTELLECTUAL CHARACTER OF POSITIVISM\n\n\n [The object of Philosophy\n is to present a systematic\n view of human life, as a\n basis for modifying its\n imperfections]\n\nThe object of all true Philosophy is to frame a system which shall\ncomprehend human life under every aspect, social as well as individual.\nIt embraces, therefore, the three kinds of phenomena of which our life\nconsists, Thoughts, Feelings, and Actions. Under all these aspects, the\ngrowth of Humanity is primarily spontaneous; and the basis upon which\nall wise attempts to modify it should proceed, can only be furnished\nby an exact acquaintance with the natural process. We are, however,\nable to modify this process systematically; and the importance of\nthis is extreme, since we can thereby greatly diminish the partial\ndeviations, the disastrous delays, and the grave inconsistencies to\nwhich so complex a growth would be liable were it left entirely to\nitself. To effect this necessary intervention is the proper sphere\nof politics. But a right conception cannot be formed of it without\nthe aid of the philosopher, whose business it is to define and amend\nthe principles on which it is conducted. With this object in view the\nphilosopher endeavours to co-ordinate the various elements of man\u2019s\nexistence, so that it may be conceived of theoretically as an integral\nwhole. His synthesis can only be valid in so far as it is an exact\nand complete representation of the relations naturally existing. The\nfirst condition is therefore that these relations be carefully studied.\nWhen the philosopher, instead of forming such a synthesis, attempts\nto interfere more directly with the course of practical life, he\ncommits the error of usurping the province of the statesman, to whom\nall practical measures exclusively belong. Philosophy and Politics are\nthe two principal functions of the great social organism. Morality,\nsystematically considered, forms the connecting link and at the same\ntime the line of demarcation between them. It is the most important\napplication of philosophy, and it gives a general direction to polity.\nNatural morality, that is to say the various emotions of our moral\nnature, will, as I have shown in my previous work, always govern the\nspeculations of the one and the operations of the other. This I shall\nexplain more fully.\n\nBut the synthesis, which it is the social function of Philosophy to\nconstruct, will neither be real nor permanent, unless it embraces\nevery department of human nature, whether speculative, effective, or\npractical. These three orders of phenomena react upon each other so\nintimately, that any system which does not include all of them must\ninevitably be unreal and inadequate. Yet it is only in the present day,\nwhen Philosophy is reaching the positive stage, that this which is her\nhighest and most essential mission can be fully apprehended.\n\n [The Theological synthesis\n failed to include the\n practical side of human\n nature]\n\nThe theological synthesis depended exclusively upon our affective\nnature; and this is owing its original supremacy and its ultimate\ndecline. For a long time its influence over all our highest\nspeculations was paramount. This was especially the case during the\nPolytheistic period, when Imagination and Feeling still retained their\nsway under very slight restraint from the reasoning faculties. Yet\neven during the time of its highest development, intellectually and\nsocially, theology exercised no real control over practical life. It\nreacted, of course, upon it to some extent, but the effects of this\nwere in most cases far more apparent than real. There was a natural\nantagonism between them, which though at first hardly perceived, went\non increasing till at last it brought about the entire destruction\nof the theological fabric. A system so purely subjective could not\nharmonize with the necessarily objective tendencies and stubborn\nrealities of practical life. Theology asserted all phenomena to\nbe under the dominion of Wills more or less arbitrary: whereas in\npractical life men were led more and more clearly to the conception of\ninvariable Laws. For without laws human action would have admitted of\nno rule or plan. In consequence of this utter inability of theology\nto deal with practical life, its treatment of speculative and even of\nmoral problems was exceedingly imperfect, such problems being all more\nor less dependent on the practical necessities of life. To present\na perfectly synthetic view of human nature was, then, impossible as\nlong as the influence of theology lasted; because the Intellect was\nimpelled by Feeling and by the Active powers in two totally different\ndirections. The failure of all metaphysical attempts to form a\nsynthesis need not be dwelt upon here. Metaphysicians, in spite of\ntheir claims to absolute truth have never been able to supersede\ntheology in questions of feeling, and have proved still more inadequate\nin practical questions. Ontology, even when it was most triumphant in\nthe schools, was always limited to subjects of a purely intellectual\nnature; and even here its abstractions, useless in themselves, dealt\nonly with the case of individual development, the metaphysical spirit\nbeing thoroughly incompatible with the social point of view. In my\nwork on Positive Philosophy I have clearly proved that it constitutes\nonly a transitory phase of mind, and is totally inadequate for any\nconstructive purpose. For a time it was supreme; but its utility lay\nsimply in its revolutionary tendencies. It aided the preliminary\ndevelopment of Humanity by its gradual inroads upon Theology, which,\nthough in ancient times entrusted with the sole direction of society,\nhad long since become in every respect utterly retrograde.\n\n [But the Positive spirit\n originated in practical life]\n\nBut all Positive speculations owe their first origin to the occupations\nof practical life; and, consequently, they have always given some\nindication of their capacity for regulating our active powers, which\nhad been omitted from every former synthesis. Their value in this\nrespect has been and still is materially impaired by their want of\nbreadth, and their isolated and incoherent character; but it has\nalways been instinctively felt. The importance that we attach to\ntheories which teach the laws of phenomena, and give us the power of\nprevision, is chiefly due to the fact that they alone can regulate\nour otherwise blind action upon the external world. Hence it is that\nwhile the Positive spirit has been growing more and more theoretical,\nand has gradually extended to every department of speculation, it has\nnever lost the practical tendencies which it derived from its source;\nand this even in the case of researches useless in themselves, and\nonly to be justified as logical exercises. From its first origin\nin mathematics and astronomy, it has always shown its tendency to\nsystematize the whole of our conceptions in every new subject which\nhas been brought within the scope of its fundamental principle. It\nexercised for a long time a modifying influence upon theological and\nmetaphysical principles, which has gone on increasing; and since the\ntime of Descartes and Bacon it has become evident that it is destined\nto supersede them altogether. Positivism has gradually taken possession\nof the preliminary sciences of Physics and Biology, and in these the\nold system no longer prevails. All that remained was to complete the\nrange of its influence by including the study of social phenomena. For\nthis study metaphysics had proved incompetent; by theological thinkers\nit had only been pursued indirectly and empirically as a condition of\ngovernment. I believe that my work on Positive Philosophy has so far\nsupplied what was wanting. I think it must now be clear to all that\nthe Positive spirit can embrace the entire range of thought without\nlessening, or rather with the effect of strengthening its original\ntendency to regulate practical life. And it is a further guarantee for\nthe stability of the new intellectual synthesis that Social science,\nwhich is the final result of our researches, gives them that systematic\ncharacter in which they had hitherto been wanting, by supplying the\nonly connecting link of which they all admit.\n\nThis conception is already adopted by all true thinkers. All must\nnow acknowledge that the Positive spirit tends necessarily towards\nthe formation of a comprehensive and durable system, in which every\npractical as well as speculative subject shall be included. But such\na system would still be far from realizing that universal character\nwithout which Positivism would be incompetent to supersede Theology in\nthe spiritual government of Humanity. For the element which really\npreponderates in every human being, that is to say, Affection, would\nstill be left untouched. This element it is, and this only, which\ngives a stimulus and direction to the other two parts of our nature:\nwithout it the one would waste its force in ill-conceived, or, at\nleast, useless studies, and the other in barren or even dangerous\ncontention. With this immense deficiency the combination of our\ntheoretical and active powers would be fruitless, because it would\nlack the only principle which could ensure its real and permanent\nstability. The failure would be even greater than the failure of\nTheology in dealing with practical questions; for the unity of human\nnature cannot really be made to depend either on the rational or the\nactive faculties. In the life of the individual, and, still more,\nin the life of the race, the basis of unity, as I shall show in the\nfourth chapter, must always be feeling. It is to the fact that theology\narose spontaneously from feeling that its influence is for the most\npart due. And although theology is now palpably on the decline, yet\nit will retain, in principle at least, some legitimate claims to the\ndirection of society so long as the new philosophy fails to occupy this\nimportant vantage-ground. We come then to the final conditions with\nwhich the modern synthesis must comply. Without neglecting the spheres\nof Thought and Action it must also comprehend the moral sphere; and the\nvery principle on which its claim to universality rests must be derived\nfrom Feeling. Then, and not till then, can the claims of theology be\nfinally set aside. For then the new system will have surpassed the old\nin that which is the one essential purpose of all general doctrines.\nIt will have shown itself able to effect what no other doctrine has\ndone, that is, to bring the three primary elements of our nature into\nharmony. If Positivism were to prove incapable of satisfying this\ncondition, we must give up all hope of systematization of any kind. For\nwhile Positive principles are now sufficiently developed to neutralize\nthose of Theology, yet, on the other hand, the influence of theology\nwould continue to be far greater. Hence it is that many conscientious\nthinkers in the present day are so inclined to despair for the future\nof society. They see that the old principles on which society has been\ngoverned must finally become powerless. What they do not see is that a\nnew basis for morality is being gradually laid down. Their theories are\ntoo imperfect and incoherent to show them the direction towards which\nthe present time is ultimately tending. It must be owned, too, that\ntheir view seems borne out by the present character of the Positive\nmethod. While all allow its utility in the treatment of practical,\nand even of speculative, problems, it seems to most men, and very\nnaturally, quite unfit to deal with questions of morality.\n\n [In human nature, and\n therefore in the Positive\n system, Affection is the\n preponderating element]\n\nBut on closer examination they will see reason to rectify their\njudgment. They will see that the hardness with which Positive science\nhas been justly reproached, is due to the speciality and want of\npurpose with which it has hitherto been pursued, and is not at all\ninherent in its nature. Originating as it did in the necessities of our\nmaterial nature, which for a long time restricted it to the study of\nthe inorganic world, it has not till now become sufficiently complete\nor systematic to harmonize well with our moral nature. But now that it\nis brought to bear upon social questions, which for the future will\nform its most important field, it loses all the defects peculiar to\nits long period of infancy. The very attribute of reality which is\nclaimed by the new philosophy, leads it to treat all subjects from the\nmoral still more than from the intellectual side. The necessity of\nassigning with exact truth the place occupied by the intellect and by\nthe heart in the organization of human nature and of society, leads to\nthe decision that Affection must be the central point of the synthesis.\nIn the treatment of social questions Positive science will be found\nutterly to discard those proud illusions of the supremacy of reason,\nto which it had been liable during its preliminary stages. Ratifying,\nin this respect, the common experience of men even more forcibly than\nCatholicism, it teaches us that individual happiness and public welfare\nare far more dependent upon the heart than upon the intellect. But,\nindependently of this, the question of co-ordinating the faculties of\nour nature will convince us that the only basis on which they can be\nbrought into harmonious union, is the preponderance of Affection over\nReason, and even over Activity.\n\nThe fact that intellect, as well as social sympathy, is a distinctive\nattribute of our nature, might lead us to suppose that either of these\ntwo might be supreme, and therefore that there might be more than one\nmethod of establishing unity. The fact, however, is that there is only\none; because these two elements are by no means equal in their fitness\nfor assuming the first place. Whether we look at the distinctive\nqualities of each, or at the degree of force which they possess, it\nis easy to see that the only position for which the intellect is\npermanently adapted is to be the servant of the social sympathies.\nIf, instead of being content with this honourable post, it aspires to\nbecome supreme, its ambitious aims, which are never realized, result\nsimply in the most deplorable disorder.\n\nEven with the individual, it is impossible to establish permanent\nharmony between our various impulses, except by giving complete\nsupremacy to the feeling which prompts the sincere and habitual desire\nof doing good. This feeling is, no doubt, like the rest, in itself\nblind; it has to learn from reason the right means of obtaining\nsatisfaction; and our active faculties are then called into requisition\nto apply those means. But common experience proves that after all the\nprincipal condition of right action is the benevolent impulse; with\nthe ordinary amount of intellect and activity that is found in men\nthis stimulus, if well sustained, is enough to direct our thoughts and\nenergies to a good result. Without this habitual spring of action they\nwould inevitably waste themselves in barren or incoherent efforts, and\nspeedily relapse into their original torpor. Unity in our moral nature\nis, then, impossible, except so far as affection preponderates over\nintellect and activity.\n\n [The proper function of\n Intellect is the Service of\n the Social Sympathies]\n\nTrue as this fundamental principle is for the individual, it is in\npublic life that its necessity can be demonstrated most irrefutably.\nThe problem is in reality the same, nor is any different solution of\nit required; only it assumes such increased dimensions, that less\nuncertainty is felt as to the method to be adopted. The various beings\nwhom it is sought to harmonize have in this case each a separate\nexistence; it is clear, therefore, that the first condition of\nco-operation must be sought in their own inherent tendency to universal\nlove. No calculations of self-interest can rival this social instinct,\nwhether in promptitude and breadth of intuition, or in boldness and\ntenacity of purpose. True it is that the benevolent emotions have in\nmost cases less intrinsic energy than the selfish. But they have this\nbeautiful quality, that social life not only permits their growth,\nbut stimulates it to an almost unlimited extent, while it holds their\nantagonists in constant check. Indeed the increasing tendency in the\nformer to prevail over the latter is the best measure by which to judge\nof the progress of Humanity. But the intellect may do much to confirm\ntheir influence. It may strengthen social feeling by diffusing juster\nviews of the relations in which the various parts of society stand to\neach other; or it may guide its application by dwelling on the lessons\nwhich the past offers to the future. It is to this honourable service\nthat the new philosophy would direct our intellectual powers. Here\nthe highest sanction is given to their operations, and an exhaustless\nfield is opened out for them, from which far deeper satisfaction may be\ngained than from the approbation of the learned societies, or from the\npuerile specialities with which they are at present occupied.\n\nIn fact, the ambitious claims which, ever since the hopeless decline\nof the theological synthesis, have been advanced by the intellect,\nnever were or could be realized. Their only value lay in their solvent\naction on the theological system when it had become hostile to\nprogress. The intellect is intended for service, not for empire; when\nit imagines itself supreme, it is really only obeying the personal\ninstead of the social instincts. It never acts independently of\nfeeling, be that feeling good or bad. The first condition of command\nis force; now reason has but light; the impulse that moves it must\ncome from elsewhere. The metaphysical Utopias, in which a life of pure\ncontemplation is held out as the highest ideal, attract the notice of\nour men of science; but are really nothing but illusions of pride, or\nveils for dishonest schemes. True there is a genuine satisfaction in\nthe act of discovering truth; but it is not sufficiently intense to\nbe an habitual guide of conduct. Indeed, so feeble is our intellect,\nthat the impulse of some passion is necessary to direct and sustain\nit in almost every effort. When the impulse comes from kindly feeling\nit attracts attention on account of its rarity or value; when it\nsprings from the selfish motives of glory, ambition, or gain, it is too\ncommon to be remarked. This is usually the only difference between the\ntwo cases. It does indeed occasionally happen that the intellect is\nactuated by a sort of passion for truth in itself, without any mixture\nof pride or vanity. Yet, in this case, as in every other, there is\nintense egotism in exercising the mental powers irrespectively of all\nsocial objects. Positivism, as I shall afterwards explain, is even more\nsevere than Catholicism in its condemnation of this type of character,\nwhether in metaphysicians or in men of science. The true philosopher\nwould consider it a most culpable abuse of the opportunities which\ncivilization affords him for the sake of the welfare of society, in\nleading a speculative life.\n\nWe have traced the Positive principle from its origin in the pursuits\nof active life, and have seen it extending successively to every\ndepartment of speculation. We now find it, in its maturity, and that\nas a simple result of its strict adherence to fact, embracing the\nsphere of affection, and making that sphere the central point of its\nsynthesis. It is henceforth a fundamental doctrine of Positivism, a\ndoctrine of as great political as philosophical importance, that the\nHeart preponderates over the Intellect.\n\n [Under Theology the\n intellect was the slave of\n the heart; under Positivism,\n its servant]\n\nIt is true that this doctrine, which is the only basis for establishing\nharmony in our nature, had been, as I before remarked, instinctively\naccepted by theological systems. But it was one of the fatalities of\nsociety in its preliminary phase, that the doctrine was coupled with\nan error which, after a time, destroyed all its value. In acknowledging\nthe superiority of the heart the intellect was reduced to abject\nsubmission. Its only chance of growth lay in resistance to the\nestablished system. This course it followed with increasing effect,\ntill after twenty centuries of insurrection, the system collapsed.\nThe natural result of the process was to stimulate metaphysical and\nscientific pride, and to promote views subversive of all social order.\nBut Positivism, while systematically adopting the principle here spoken\nof as the foundation of individual and social discipline, interprets\nthat principle in a different way. It teaches that while it is for the\nheart to suggest our problems, it is for the intellect to solve them.\nNow the intellect was at first quite inadequate to this task, for which\na long and laborious training was needed. The heart, therefore, had to\ntake its place, and in default of objective truth, to give free play to\nits subjective inspirations. But for these inspirations, all progress,\nas I showed in my _System of Positive Philosophy_, would have been\ntotally impossible. For a long time it was necessary that they should\nbe believed absolutely; but as soon as our reason began to mould its\nconceptions upon observations, more or less accurate, of the external\nworld, these supernatural dogmas became inevitably an obstacle to its\ngrowth. Here lies the chief source of the important modifications which\ntheological belief has successively undergone. No further modifications\nare now possible without violating its essential principles; and since,\nmeantime, Positive science is assuming every day larger proportions,\nthe conflict between them is advancing with increasing vehemence and\ndanger. The tendency on the one side is becoming more retrograde, on\nthe other more revolutionary; because the impossibility of reconciling\nthe two opposing forces is felt more and more strongly. Never was this\nposition of affairs more manifest than now. The restoration of theology\nto its original power, supposing such a thing were possible, would have\nthe most degrading influence on the intellect, and, consequently, on\nthe character also; since it would involve the admission that our views\nof scientific truth were to be strained into accordance with our wishes\nand our wants. Therefore no important step in the progress of Humanity\ncan now be made without totally abandoning the theological principle.\nThe only service of any real value which it still renders, is that\nof forcing the attention of Western Europe, by the very fact of its\nreactionary tendencies, upon the greatest of all social questions. It\nis owing to its influence that the central point of the new synthesis\nis placed in our moral rather than our intellectual nature; and this,\nin spite of every prejudice and habit of thought that has been formed\nduring the revolutionary period of the last five centuries. And while\nin this, which is the primary condition of social organization,\nPositivism, proves more efficient than Theology, it at the same time\nterminates the disunion which has existed so long between the intellect\nand the heart. For it follows logically from its principles, and also\nfrom the whole spirit of the system, that the intellect shall be free\nto exercise its full share of influence in every department of human\nlife. When it is said that the intellect should be subordinate to\nthe heart, what is meant is, that the intellect should devote itself\nexclusively to the problems which the heart suggests, the ultimate\nobject being to find proper satisfaction for our various wants.\nWithout this limitation, experience has shown too clearly that it\nwould almost always follow its natural bent for useless or insoluble\nquestions, which are the most plentiful and the easiest to deal with.\nBut when any problem of a legitimate kind has been once proposed, it\nis the sole judge of the method to be pursued, and of the utility of\nthe results obtained. Its province is to inquire into the present, in\norder to foresee the future, and to discover the means of improving\nit. In this province it is not to be interfered with. In a word the\nintellect is to be the servant of the heart, not its slave. Under\nthese two correlative conditions the elements of our nature will at\nlast be brought into harmony. The equilibrium of these two elements,\nonce established, is in little danger of being disturbed. For since\nit is equally favourable to both of them, both will be interested\nin maintaining it. The fact that Reason in modern times has become\nhabituated to revolt, is no ground for supposing that it will always\nretain its revolutionary character, even when its legitimate claims\nhave been fully satisfied. Supposing the case to arise, however,\nsociety, as I shall show afterwards, would not be without the means\nof repressing any pretensions that were subversive of order. There is\nanother point of view which may assure us that the position given to\nthe heart under the new system will involve no danger to the growth of\nintellect. Love, when real, ever desires light, in order to attain its\nends. The influence of true feeling is as favourable to sound thought\nas to wise activity.\n\n [The subordination of the\n intellect to the heart is\n the _Subjective Principle_\n of Positivism]\n\nOur doctrine, therefore, is one which renders hypocrisy and oppression\nalike impossible. And it now stands forward as the result of all the\nefforts of the past, for the regeneration of order, which, whether\nconsidered individually or socially, is so deeply compromised by the\nanarchy of the present time. It establishes a fundamental principle by\nwhich true philosophy and sound polity are brought into correlation; a\nprinciple which can be felt as well as proved, and which is at once the\nkeystone of a system and a basis of government. I shall show, moreover,\nin the fifth chapter, that the doctrine is as rich in esthetic beauty\nas in philosophical power and in social influence. This will complete\nthe proof of its efficacy as the centre of a universal system. Viewed\nfrom the moral, scientific, or poetical aspect, it is equally valuable;\nand it is the only principle which can bring Humanity safely through\nthe most formidable crisis that she has ever yet undergone. It will\nbe now clear to all that the force of demonstration, a force peculiar\nto modern times, and which still retains much of its destructive\ncharacter, becomes matured and elevated by Positivism. It begins\nto develop constructive tendencies, which will soon be developed\nmore largely. It is not too much, then, to say that Positivism,\nnotwithstanding its speculative origin, offers as much to natures\nof deep sympathy as to men of highly cultivated intellects, or of\nenergetic character.\n\n [_Objective basis_ of the\n system; External Order of\n the World, as revealed by\n Science]\n\nThe spirit and the principle of the synthesis which all true\nphilosophers should endeavour to establish, have now been defined. I\nproceed to explain the method that should be followed in the task, and\nthe peculiar difficulty with which it is attended.\n\nThe object of the synthesis will not be secured until it embraces\nthe whole extent of its domain, the moral and practical departments\nas well as the intellectual. But these three departments cannot be\ndealt with simultaneously. They follow an order of succession which,\nso far from dissevering them from the whole to which they belong, is\nseen when carefully examined to be a natural result of their mutual\ndependence. The truth is, and it is a truth of great importance, that\nThoughts must be systematized before Feelings, Feelings before Actions.\nIt is doubtless, owing to a confused apprehension of this truth, that\nphilosophers hitherto, in framing their systems of human nature, have\ndealt almost exclusively, with our intellectual faculties.\n\nThe necessity of commencing with the co-ordination of ideas is not\nmerely due to the fact that the relations of these, being more\nsimple and more susceptible of demonstration, form a useful logical\npreparation for the remainder of the task. On closer examination we\nfind a more important, though less obvious reason. If this first\nportion of the work be once efficiently performed, it is the foundation\nof all the rest. In what remains no very serious difficulty will\noccur, provided always that we content ourselves with that degree of\ncompleteness which the ultimate purpose of the system requires.\n\nTo give such paramount importance to this portion of the subject may\nseem at first sight inconsistent with the proposition just laid down,\nthat the strength of the intellectual faculties is far inferior to that\nof the other elements of our nature. It is quite certain that Feeling\nand Activity have much more to do with any practical step that we take\nthan pure Reason. In attempting to explain this paradox, we come at\nlast to the peculiar difficulty of this great problem of human Unity.\n\nThe first condition of unity is a subjective principle; and this\nprinciple in the Positive system is the subordination of the intellect\nto the heart: Without this the unity that we seek can never be placed\non a permanent basis, whether individually or collectively. It is\nessential to have some influence sufficiently powerful to produce\nconvergence amid the heterogeneous and often antagonistic tendencies of\nso complex an organism as ours. But this first condition, indispensable\nas it is, would be quite insufficient for the purpose, without some\nobjective basis, existing independently of ourselves in the external\nworld. That basis consists for us in the laws or Order of the phenomena\nby which Humanity is regulated. The subjection of human life to this\norder is incontestable; and as soon as the intellect has enabled us to\ncomprehend it, it becomes possible for the feeling of love to exercise\na controlling influence over our discordant tendencies. This, then, is\nthe mission allotted to the intellect in the Positive synthesis; in\nthis sense it is that it should be consecrated to the service of the\nheart.\n\nI have said that our conception of human unity must be totally\ninadequate, and, indeed, cannot deserve the name, so long as it does\nnot embrace every element of our nature. But it would be equally fatal\nto the completeness of this great conception to think of human nature\nirrespectively of what lies outside it. A purely subjective unity,\nwithout any objective basis, would be simply impossible. In the first\nplace any attempt to co-ordinate man\u2019s moral nature, without regard\nto the external world, supposing the attempt feasible, would have very\nlittle permanent influence on our happiness, whether collectively or\nindividually; since happiness depends so largely upon our relations\nto all that exists around us. Besides this, we have to consider the\nexceeding imperfection of our nature. Self-love is deeply implanted in\nit, and when left to itself is far stronger than Social Sympathy. The\nsocial instincts would never gain the mastery were they not sustained\nand called into constant exercise by the economy of the external world,\nan influence which at the same time checks the power of the selfish\ninstincts.\n\n [By it the selfish\n affections are controlled;\n the unselfish strengthened]\n\nTo understand this economy aright; we must remember that it embraces\nnot merely the inorganic world, but also the phenomena of our own\nexistence. The phenomena of human life, though more modifiable than\nany others, are yet equally subject to invariable laws; laws which\nform the principal objects of Positive speculation. Now the benevolent\naffections, which themselves act in harmony with the laws of social\ndevelopment, incline us to submit to all other laws, as soon as the\nintellect has discovered their existence. The possibility of moral\nunity depends, therefore, even in the case of the individual, but\nstill more in that of society, upon the necessity of recognizing our\nsubjection to an external power. By this means our self-regarding\ninstincts are rendered susceptible of discipline. In themselves they\nare strong enough to neutralize all sympathetic tendencies, were it\nnot for the support that the latter find in this External Order. Its\ndiscovery is due to the intellect; which is thus enlisted in the\nservice of feeling, with the ultimate purpose of regulating action.\n\nThus it is that an intellectual synthesis, or systematic study of\nthe laws of nature, is needed on far higher grounds than those of\nsatisfying our theoretical faculties, which are, for the most part,\nvery feeble, even in men who devote themselves to a life of thought. It\nis needed, because it solves at once the most difficult problem of the\nmoral synthesis. The higher impulses within us are brought under the\ninfluence of a powerful stimulus from without. By its means they are\nenabled to control our discordant impulses, and to maintain a state of\nharmony towards which they have always tended, but which, without such\naid, could never be realized. Moreover, this conception of the order of\nnature evidently supplies the basis for a synthesis of human action;\nfor the efficacy of our action depends entirely upon their conformity\nto this order. But this part of the subject has been fully explained in\nmy previous work, and I need not enlarge upon it further. As soon as\nthe synthesis of mental conceptions enables us to form a synthesis of\nfeelings, it is clear that there will be no very serious difficulties\nin constructing a synthesis of actions. Unity of action depends upon\nunity of impulse, and unity of design; and thus we find that the\nco-ordination of human nature, as a whole, depends ultimately upon the\nco-ordination of mental conceptions, a subject which seemed at first of\ncomparatively slight importance.\n\nThe subjective principle of Positivism, that is, the subordination of\nthe intellect to the heart is thus fortified by an objective basis,\nthe immutable Necessity of the external world; and by this means it\nbecomes possible to bring human life within the influence of social\nsympathy. The superiority of the new synthesis to the old is even more\nevident under this second aspect than under the first. In theological\nsystems the objective basis was supplied by spontaneous belief in a\nsupernatural Will. Now, whatever the degree of reality attributed\nto these fictions, they all proceeded from a subjective source; and\ntherefore their influence in most cases must have been very confused\nand fluctuating. In respect of moral discipline they cannot be compared\neither for precision, for force, or for stability, to the conception\nof an invariable Order, actually existing without us, and attested,\nwhether we will or no, by every act of our existence.\n\n [Our conception of this\n External Order has been\n gradually growing from the\n earliest times, and is but\n just complete]\n\nThis fundamental doctrine of Positivism is not to be attributed in the\nfull breadth of its meanings to any single thinker. It is the slow\nresult of a vast process carried out in separate departments, which\nbegan with the first use of our intellectual powers, and which is only\njust completed in those who exhibit those powers in their highest form.\nDuring the long period of her infancy Humanity has been preparing\nthis the most precious of her intellectual attainments, as the basis\nfor the only system of life which is permanently adapted to our\nnature. The doctrine has to be demonstrated in all the more essential\ncases from observation only, except so far as we admit argument from\nanalogy. Deductive argument is not admissible, except in such cases\nas are evidently compounded of others in which the proof given has\nbeen sufficient. Thus, for instance, we are authorized by sound logic\nto assert the existence of laws of weather; though most of these are\nstill, and, perhaps, always will be, unknown. For it is clear that\nmeteorological phenomena result from a combination of astronomical,\nphysical and chemical influences, each of which has been proved to\nbe subject to invariable laws. But in all phenomena which are not\nthus reducible, we must have recourse to inductive reasoning; for a\nprinciple which is the basis of all deduction cannot be itself deduced.\nHence it is that the doctrine, being so entirely foreign as it is to\nour primitive mental state, requires such a long course of preparation.\nWithout such preparation even the greatest thinkers could not\nanticipate it. It is true that in some cases metaphysical conceptions\nof a law have been formed before the proof really required had been\nfurnished. But they were never of much service, except so far as they\ngeneralized in a more or less confused way the analogies naturally\nsuggested by the laws which had actually been discovered in simpler\nphenomena. Besides, such assertions always remained very doubtful and\nvery barren in result, until they were based upon some outline of a\nreally Positive theory. Thus, in spite of the apparent potency of\nthis metaphysical method, to which modern intellects are so addicted,\nthe conception of an External Order is still extremely imperfect in\nmany of the most cultivated minds, because they have not verified it\nsufficiently in the most intricate and important class of phenomena,\nthe phenomena of society. I am not, of course, speaking of the few\nthinkers who accept my discovery of the principal laws of Sociology.\nSuch uncertainty in a subject so closely related to all others,\nproduces great confusion in men\u2019s minds, and affects their perception\nof an invariable order, even in the simplest subjects. A proof of this\nis the utter delusion into which most geometricians of the present day\nhave fallen with respect to what they call the Calculus of Chances;\na conception which presupposes that the phenomena considered are not\nsubject to law. The doctrine, therefore, cannot be considered as firmly\nestablished in any one case, until it has been verified specially in\nevery one of the primary categories in which phenomena may be classed.\nBut now that this difficult condition has really been fulfilled by the\nfew thinkers who have risen to the level of their age, we have at last\na firm objective basis on which to establish the harmony of our moral\nnature. That basis is, that all events whatever, the events of our\nown personal and social life included, are always subject to natural\nrelations of sequence and similitude, which in all essential respects\nlie beyond the reach of our interference.\n\n [Even where not modifiable,\n its influence on the\n character is of the greatest\n value]\n\nThis, then, is the external basis of our synthesis, which includes\nthe moral and practical faculties, as well as the speculative. It\nrests at every point upon the unchangeable Order of the world. The\nright understanding of this order is the principal subject of our\nthoughts; its preponderating influence determines the general course\nof our feelings; its gradual improvement is the constant object of\nour actions. To form a more precise notion of its influence, let us\nimagine that for a moment it were really to cease. The result would\nbe that our intellectual faculties, after wasting themselves in\nwild extravagancies, would sink rapidly into incurable sloth; our\nnobler feelings would be unable to prevent the ascendancy of the\nlower instincts; and our active powers would abandon themselves to\npurposeless agitation. Men have, it is true, been for a long time\nignorant of this Order. Nevertheless we have been always subject to\nit; and its influence has always tended, though without our knowledge,\nto control our whole being; our actions first, and subsequently\nour thoughts, and even our affections. As we have advanced in our\nknowledge of it, our thoughts have become less vague, our desires less\ncapricious, our conduct less arbitrary. And now that we are able to\ngrasp the full meaning of the conception, its influence extends to\nevery part of our conduct. For it teaches us that the object to be\naimed at in the economy devised by man, is wise development of the\nirresistible economy of nature, which cannot be amended till it is\nfirst studied and obeyed. In some departments it has the character\nof fate; that is, it admits of no modification. But even here, in\nspite of the superficial objections to it which have arisen from\nintellectual pride, it is necessary for the proper regulation of human\nlife. Suppose, for instance, that man were exempt from the necessity\nof living on the earth, and were free to pass at will from one planet\nto another, the very notion of society would be rendered impossible by\nthe licence which each individual would have to give way to whatever\nunsettling and distracting impulses his nature might incline him.\nOur propensities are so heterogeneous and so deficient in elevation,\nthat there would be no fixity or consistency in our conduct, but\nfor these insurmountable conditions. Our feeble reason may fret at\nsuch restrictions, but without them all its deliberations would be\nconfused and purposeless. We are powerless to create: all that we can\ndo in bettering our condition is to modify an order in which we can\nproduce no radical change. Supposing us in possession of that absolute\nindependence to which metaphysical pride aspires, it is certain that so\nfar from improving our condition, it would be a bar to all development,\nwhether social or individual. The true path of human progress lies in\nthe opposite direction; in diminishing the vacillation, inconsistency,\nand discordance of our designs by furnishing external motives for those\noperations of our intellectual, moral and practical powers, of which\nthe original source was purely internal. The ties by which our various\ndiverging tendencies are held together would be quite inadequate for\ntheir purpose, without a basis of support in the external world, which\nis unaffected by the spontaneous variations of our nature.\n\nBut, however great the value of Positive doctrine in pointing out the\nunchangeable aspects of the universal Order, what we have principally\nto consider are the numerous departments in which that order admits of\nartificial modifications. Here lies the most important sphere of human\nactivity. The only phenomena, indeed, which we are wholly unable to\nmodify are the simplest of all, the phenomena of the Solar System which\nwe inhabit. It is true that now that we know its laws we can easily\nconceive them improved in certain respects; but to whatever degree our\npower over nature may extend, we shall never be able to produce the\nslightest change in them. What we have to do is so to dispose our life\nas to submit to these resistless fatalities in the best way we can; and\nthis is comparatively easy, because their greater simplicity enables\nus to foresee them with more precision and in a more distinct future.\nTheir interpretation by Positive science has had a most important\ninfluence on the gradual education of the human intellect: and it will\nalways continue to be the source from which we obtain the clearest and\nmost impressive sense of Immutability. Too exclusively studied they\nmight even now lead to fatalism; but controlled as their influence will\nbe henceforward by a more philosophic education, they may well become a\nmeans of moral improvement, by disposing us to submit with resignation\nto all evils which are absolutely insurmountable.\n\n [But in most cases we can\n modify it; and in these the\n knowledge of it forms the\n systematic basis of human\n action]\n\nIn other parts of the external economy, invariability in all primary\naspects is found compatible with modifications in points of secondary\nimportance. These modifications become more numerous and extensive as\nthe phenomena are more complex. The reason of this is that the causes\nfrom a combination of which the effects proceed being more varied and\nmore accessible, offer greater facilities to our feeble powers to\ninterfere with advantage. But all this has been fully explained in my\n_System of Positive Philosophy_. The tendency of that work was to show\nthat our intervention became more efficacious in proportion as the\nphenomena upon which we acted had a closer relation to the life of man\nor society. Indeed the extensive modifications of which society admits,\ngo far to keep up the common mistake that social phenomena are not\nsubject to any constant law.\n\nAt the same time we have to remember that this increased possibility of\nhuman intervention in certain parts of the External Order necessarily\ncoexists with increased imperfection, for which it is a valuable but\nvery inadequate compensation. Both features alike result from the\nincrease of complexity. Even the laws of the Solar System are very far\nfrom perfect, notwithstanding their greater simplicity, which indeed\nmakes their defects more perceptible. The existence of these defects\nshould be taken into careful consideration; not indeed with the hope\nof amending them, but as a check upon unreasoning admiration. Besides,\nthey lead us to a clearer conception of the true position of Humanity,\na position of which the most striking feature is the necessity of\nstruggling against difficulties of every kind. Lastly, by observing\nthese defects we are less likely to waste our time in seeking for\nabsolute perfection, and so neglecting the wiser course of looking for\nsuch improvements as are really possible.\n\nIn all other phenomena, the increasing imperfection of the economy\nof nature becomes a powerful stimulus to all our faculties, whether\nmoral, intellectual or practical. Here we find sufferings which can\nreally be alleviated to a large extent by wise and well-sustained\ncombination of efforts. This consideration should give a firmness and\ndignity of bearing, to which Humanity could never attain during her\nperiod of infancy. Those who look wisely into the future of society\nwill feel that the conception of man becoming, without fear or boast,\nthe arbiter, within certain limits, of his own destiny, has in it\nsomething far more satisfying than the old belief in Providence, which\nimplied our remaining passive. Social union will be strengthened by the\nconception, because every one will see that union forms our principal\nresource against the miseries of human life. And while it calls out our\nnoblest sympathies, it impresses us more strongly with the importance\nof high intellectual culture, being itself the object for which such\nculture is required. These important results have been ever on the\nincrease in modern times; yet hitherto they have been too limited and\ncasual to be appreciated rightly, except so far as we could anticipate\nthe future of society by the light of sound historical principles.\nArt, so far as it is yet organized, does not include that part of the\neconomy of nature which, being the most modifiable, the most imperfect,\nand the most important of all, ought on every ground to be regarded as\nthe principal object of human exertions. Even Medical Art, specially\nso called, is only just beginning to free itself from its primitive\nroutine. And Social Art, whether moral or political, is plunged in\nroutine so deeply that few statesmen admit the possibility of shaking\nit off. Yet of all the arts, it is the one which best admits of being\nreduced to a system; and until this is done it will be impossible to\nplace on a rational basis all the rest of our practical life. All these\nnarrow views are due simply to insufficient recognition of the fact,\nthat the highest phenomena are as much subject to laws as others. When\nthe conception of the Order of Nature has become generally accepted\nin its full extent, the ordinary definition of Art will become as\ncomprehensive and as homogeneous as that of Science; and it will then\nbecome obvious to all sound thinkers that the principal sphere of both\nArt and Science is the social life of man.\n\nThus the social services of the Intellect are not limited to revealing\nthe existence of an external Economy, and the necessity of submission\nto its sway. If the theory is to have any influence upon our active\npowers, it should include an exact estimate of the imperfections\nof this economy and of the limits within which it varies, so as to\nindicate and define the boundaries of human intervention. Thus it will\nalways be an important function of philosophy to criticize nature in\na Positive spirit, although the antipathy to theology by which such\ncriticism was formerly animated has ceased to have much interest, from\nthe very fact of having done its work so effectually. The object of\nPositive criticism is not controversial. It aims simply at putting\nthe great question of human life in a clearer light. It bears closely\non what Positivism teaches to be the great end of life, namely, the\nstruggle to become more perfect; which implies previous imperfection.\nThis truth is strikingly apparent when applied to the case of our own\nnature, for true morality requires a deep and habitual consciousness of\nour natural defects.\n\n [The chief difficulty of\n the Positive Synthesis was\n to complete our conception\n of the External Order, by\n extending it to Social\n phenomena]\n\nI have now described the fundamental condition of the Positive\nSynthesis. Deriving its subjective principle from the affections, it\nis dependent ultimately on the intellect for its objective basis. This\nbasis connects it with the Economy of the external world, the dominion\nof which Humanity accepts, and at the same time modifies. I have left\nmany points unexplained; but enough has been said for the purpose of\nthis work, which is only the introduction to a larger treatise. We\nnow come to the essential difficulty that presented itself in the\nconstruction of the Synthesis. That difficulty was to discover the true\nTheory of human and social Development. The first decisive step in this\ndiscovery renders the conception of the Order of Nature complete. It\nstands out then as the fundamental doctrine of an universal system, for\nwhich the whole course of modern progress has been preparing the way.\nFor three centuries men of science have been unconsciously co-operating\nin the work. They have left no gap of any importance, except in the\nregion of Moral and Social phenomena. And now that man\u2019s history has\nbeen for the first time systematically considered as a whole, and has\nbeen found to be, like all other phenomena, subject to invariable laws,\nthe preparatory labours of modern Science are ended. Her remaining task\nis to construct that synthesis which will place her at the only point\nof view from which every department of knowledge can be embraced.\n\nIn my _System of Positive Philosophy_ both these objects were aimed\nat. I attempted, and in the opinion of the principal thinkers of our\ntime successfully, to complete and at the same time co-ordinate Natural\nPhilosophy, by establishing the general law of human development,\nsocial as well as intellectual. I shall not now enter into the\ndiscussion of this law, since its truth is no longer contested.\nFuller consideration of it is reserved for the third volume of my new\ntreatise. It lays down, as is generally known, that our speculations\nupon all subjects whatsoever, pass necessarily through three successive\nstages: a Theological stage, in which free play is given to spontaneous\nfictions admitting of no proof; the Metaphysical stage, characterized\nby the prevalence of personified abstractions or entities; lastly,\nthe Positive stage, based upon an exact view of the real facts of\nthe case. The first, though purely provisional, is invariably the\npoint from which we start; the third is the only permanent or normal\nstate; the second has but a modifying or rather a solvent influence,\nwhich qualifies it for regulating the transition from the first stage\nto the third. We begin with theological Imagination, thence we pass\nthrough metaphysical Discussion, and we end at last with positive\nDemonstration. Thus by means of this one general law we are enabled to\ntake a comprehensive and simultaneous view of the past, present, and\nfuture of Humanity.\n\nIn my _System of Positive Philosophy_, this law of Filiation has always\nbeen associated with the law of Classification, the application of\nwhich to Social Dynamics furnishes the second element requisite for\nthe theory of development. It fixes the order in which our different\nconceptions pass through each of these phases. That order, as is\ngenerally known, is determined by the decreasing generality, or\nwhat comes to the same thing, by the increasing complexity of the\nphenomena; the more complex being naturally dependent upon those that\nare more simple and less special. Arranging the sciences according to\nthis mutual relation, we find them grouped naturally in six primary\ndivisions[2]; Mathematics, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,\nand Sociology. Each passes through the three phases of developments\nbefore the one succeeding it. Without continuous reference to this\nclassification the theory of development would be confused and vague.\n\nThe theory thus derived from the combination of this second or\nstatical law with the dynamical law of the three stages, seems at\nfirst sight to include nothing but the intellectual movement. But my\nprevious remarks will have shown that this is enough to guarantee\nits applicability to social progress also; since social progress has\ninvariably depended on the growth of our fundamental beliefs with\nregard to the economy that surrounds us. The historical portion of\nmy _Positive Philosophy_ has proved an unbroken connexion between\nthe development of Activity and that of Speculation; on the combined\ninfluence of these depends the development of Affection. The theory\ntherefore requires no alteration: what is wanted is merely an\nadditional statement explaining the phases of active, that is to say,\nof political development. Human activity, as I have long since shown,\npasses successively through the stages of Offensive warfare, Defensive\nwarfare, and Industry. The respective connexion of these states with\nthe preponderance of the theological, then metaphysical, or the\npositive spirit leads at once to a complete explanation of history. It\nreproduces in a systematic form the only historical conception which\nhas become adopted by universal consent; the division, namely, of\nhistory into Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern.\n\nThus the foundation of Social science depends simply upon establishing\nthe truth of this theory of development. We do this by combining the\ndynamic law, which is its distinctive feature, with the statical\nprinciple which renders it coherent; we then complete the theory by\nextending it to practical life. All knowledge is now brought within\nthe sphere of Natural Philosophy; and the provisional distinction by\nwhich, since Aristotle and Plato, it has been so sharply demarcated\nfrom Moral Philosophy, ceases to exist. The Positive spirit, so long\nconfined to the simpler inorganic phenomena, has now passed through\nits difficult course of probation. It extends to a more important and\nmore intricate class of speculations, and disengages them for ever from\nall theological or metaphysical influence. All our notions of truth\nare thus rendered homogeneous, and begin at once to converge towards a\ncentral principle. A firm objective basis is consequently laid down for\nthat complete co-ordination of human existence towards which all sound\nPhilosophy has ever tended, but which the want of adequate materials\nhas hitherto made impossible.\n\n [By the discovery of\n Sociological laws social\n questions are made\n paramount; and thus our\n _subjective principle_ is\n satisfied without danger to\n free thought]\n\nIt will be felt, I think, that the principal difficulty of the Positive\nSynthesis was met by my discovery of the laws of development, if\nwe bear in mind that while that theory completes and co-ordinates\nthe objective basis of the system, it at the same time holds it in\nsubordination to the subjective principle. It is under the influence\nof this moral principle that the whole philosophical construction\nshould be carried on. The inquiry into the Order of the Universe is\nan indispensable task, and it comes necessarily within the province\nof the intellect; but the intellect is too apt to aim in its pride at\nsomething beyond its proper function, which consists in unremitting\nservice of the social sympathies. It would willingly escape from all\ncontrol and follow its own bent towards speculative digressions; a\ntendency which is at present favoured by the undisciplined habits of\nthought naturally due to the first rise of Positivism in its special\ndepartments. The influence of the moral principle is necessary to\nrecall it to its true function; since if its investigations were\nallowed to assume an absolute character, and to recognize no limit,\nwe should only be repeating in a scientific form many of the worst\nresults of theological and metaphysical belief. The Universe is to be\nstudied not for its own sake, but for the sake of Man or rather of\nHumanity. To study it in any other spirit would not only be immoral,\nbut also highly irrational. For, as statements of pure objective\ntruth, our scientific theories can never be really satisfactory. They\ncan only satisfy us from the subjective point of view; that is, by\nlimiting themselves to the treatment of such questions as have some\ndirect or indirect influence over human life. It is for social feeling\nto determine these limits; outside which our knowledge will always\nremain imperfect as well as useless, and this even in the case of the\nsimplest phenomena; as astronomy testifies. Were the influence of\nsocial feeling to be slackened, the Positive spirit would soon fall\nback to the subjects which were preferred during the period of its\ninfancy; subjects the most remote from human interest, and therefore\nalso the easiest. While its probationary period lasted, it was natural\nto investigate all accessible problems without distinction; and this\nwas often justified by the logical value of many problems that,\nscientifically speaking, were useless. But now that the Positive\nmethod has been sufficiently developed to be applied exclusively to\nthe purpose for which it was intended, there is no use whatever in\nprolonging the period of probation by these idle exercises. Indeed the\nwant of purpose and discipline in our researches is rapidly assuming\na retrograde character. Its tendency is to undo the chief results\nobtained by the spirit of detail during the time when that spirit was\nreally essential to progress.\n\nHere, then, we are met by a serious difficulty. The construction of\nthe objective basis for the Positive synthesis imposes two conditions\nwhich seem, at first sight, incompatible. On the one hand we must\nallow the intellect to be free, or else we shall not have the full\nbenefit of its services; and, on the other, we must control its natural\ntendency to unlimited digressions. The problem was insoluble, so long\nas the study of the natural economy did not include Sociology. But\nas soon as the Positive spirit extends to the treatment of social\nquestions, these at once take precedence of all others, and thus the\nmoral point of view becomes paramount. Objective science, proceeding\nfrom without inwards, falls at last into natural harmony with the\nsubjective or moral principle, the superiority of which it had for\nso long a time resisted. As a mere speculative question it may be\nconsidered as proved to the satisfaction of every true thinker, that\nthe social point of view is logically and scientifically supreme\nover all others, being the only point from which all our scientific\nconceptions can be regarded as a whole. Yet its influence can never be\ninjurious to the progress of other Positive studies; for these, whether\nfor the sake of their method or of their subject matter, will always\ncontinue to be necessary as an introduction to the final science.\nIndeed the Positive system gives the highest sanction and the most\npowerful stimulus to all preliminary sciences, by insisting on the\nrelation which each of them bears to the great whole, Humanity.\n\nThus the foundation of social science bears out the statement made at\nthe beginning of this work, that the intellect would, under Positivism,\naccept its proper position of subordination to the heart. The\nrecognition of this, which is the subjective principle of Positivism,\nrenders the construction of a complete system of human life possible.\nThe antagonism which, since the close of the Middle Ages, has arisen\nbetween Reason and Feeling, was an anomalous though inevitable\ncondition. It is now for ever at an end; and the only system which can\nreally satisfy the wants of our nature, individually or collectively,\nis therefore ready for our acceptance. As long as the antagonism\nexisted, it was hopeless to expect that Social Sympathy could do much\nto modify the preponderance of self-love in the affairs of life. But\nthe case is different as soon as reason and sympathy are brought into\nactive co-operation. Separately, their influence in our imperfect\norganization is very feeble; but combined it may extend indefinitely.\nIt will never, indeed, be able to do away with the fact that practical\nlife must, to a large extent, be regulated by interested motives; yet\nit may introduce a standard of morality inconceivably higher than any\nthat has existed in the past, before these two modifying forces could\nbe made to combine their action upon our stronger and lower instincts.\n\n [Distinction between\n Abstract and Concrete laws.\n It is the former only that\n we require for the purpose\n before us]\n\nIn order to give a more precise conception of the intellectual basis\non which the system of Positive Polity should rest, I must explain the\ngeneral principle by which it should be limited. It should be confined\nto what is really indispensable to the construction of that Polity.\nOtherwise the intellect will be carried away, as it has been before, by\nits tendency to useless digressions. It will endeavour to extend the\nlimits of its province; thereby escaping from the discipline imposed\nby social motives, and putting off all attempts at moral and social\nregeneration for a longer time than the construction of the philosophic\nbasis for action really demands. Here we shall find a fresh proof of\nthe importance of my theory of development. By that discovery the\nintellectual synthesis may be considered as having already reached the\npoint from which the synthesis of affections may be at once begun; and\neven that of actions, at least in its highest and most difficult part,\nmorality properly so called.\n\nWith the view of restricting the construction of the objective basis\nwithin reasonable limits, there is this distinction to be borne in\nmind. In the Order of Nature, there are two classes of laws; those\nthat are simple or Abstract, those that are compound or Concrete. In\nmy work on _Positive Philosophy_, the distinction has been thoroughly\nestablished, and frequent use has been made of it. It will be\nsufficient here to point out its origin and the method of applying it.\n\nPositive science may deal either with objects themselves as they exist,\nor with the separate phenomena that the objects exhibit. Of course we\ncan only judge of an object by the sum of its phenomena; but it is\nopen to us either to examine a special class of phenomena abstracted\nfrom all the beings that exhibit it, or to take some special object,\nand examine the whole concrete group of phenomena. In the latter case\nwe shall be studying different systems of existence; in the former,\ndifferent modes of activity. As good an example of the distinction as\ncan be given is that, already mentioned, of Meteorology. The facts of\nweather are evidently combinations of astronomical, physical, chemical,\nbiological, and even social phenomena; each of these classes requiring\nits own separate theories. Were these abstract laws sufficiently\nwell known to us, then the whole difficulty of the concrete problem\nwould be so to combine them, as to deduce the order in which each\ncomposite effect would follow. This, however, is a process which\nseems to me so far beyond our feeble powers of deduction, that, even\nsupposing our knowledge of the abstract laws perfect, we should still\nbe obliged to have recourse to the inductive method.\n\nNow the investigation of the economy of nature here contemplated is\nevidently of the abstract kind. We decompose that economy into its\nprimary phenomena, that is to say, into those which are not reducible\nto others. These we range in classes, each of which, notwithstanding\nthe connexion that exists between all, requires a separate inductive\nprocess; for the existence of laws cannot be proved in any one of them\nby pure deduction. It is only with these simpler and more abstract\nrelations that our synthesis is directly concerned: when these are\nestablished, they afford a rational groundwork for the more composite\nand concrete researches. The great complexity of concrete relations\nmakes it probable that we shall never be able to co-ordinate them\nperfectly. In that case the synthesis would always remain limited to\nabstract laws. But its true object, that of supplying an objective\nbasis for the great synthesis of human life, will none the less be\nattained. For this groundwork of abstract knowledge would introduce\nharmony between all our mental conceptions, and thereby would make it\nimpossible to systematize our feelings and actions, which is the object\nof all sound philosophy. The abstract study of nature is therefore\nall that is absolutely indispensable for the establishment of unity\nin human life. It serves as the foundation of all wise action; as the\n_philosophia prima_, the necessity of which in the normal state of\nhumanity was dimly foreseen by Bacon. When the abstract laws exhibiting\nthe various modes of activity have been brought systematically before\nus, our practical knowledge of each special system of existence ceases\nto be purely empirical, though the greater number of concrete laws may\nstill be unknown. We find the best example of this truth in the most\ndifficult and important subject of all, Sociology. Knowledge of the\nprincipal statical and dynamical laws of social existence is evidently\nsufficient for the purpose of systematizing the various aspects of\nprivate or public life, and thereby of rendering our condition far\nmore perfect. Should this knowledge be acquired, of which there is\nnow no doubt, we need not regret being unable to give a satisfactory\nexplanation of every state of society that we find existing throughout\nthe world in all ages. The discipline of social feeling will check\nany foolish indulgence of the spirit of curiosity, and prevent the\nunderstanding from wasting its powers in useless speculations; for\nfeeble as these powers are, it is from them that Humanity derives\nher most efficient means of contending against the defects of the\nExternal Order. The discovery of the principal concrete laws would no\ndoubt be attended by the most beneficial results, moral as well as\nphysical; and this is the field in which the science of the future\nwill reap its richest harvest. But such knowledge is not indispensable\nfor our present purpose, which is to form a complete synthesis of\nlife, effecting for the final state of humanity what the theological\nsynthesis effected for its primitive state. For this purpose Abstract\nphilosophy is undoubtedly sufficient; so that even supposing that\nConcrete philosophy should never become so perfect as we desire, social\nregeneration will still be possible.\n\n [In my Theory of\n Development, the required\n Synthesis of Abstract\n conceptions already exists]\n\nRegarded under this more simple aspect, our system of scientific\nknowledge is already so far elaborated, that all thinkers whose nature\nis sufficiently sympathetic may proceed without delay to the problem\nof moral regeneration; a problem which must prepare the way for that\nof political reorganization. For we shall find that the theory of\ndevelopment of which we have been speaking, when looked at from another\npoint of view, condenses and systematizes all our abstract conceptions\nof the order of nature.\n\nThis will be understood by regarding all departments of our knowledge\nas being really component parts of one and the same science; the\nscience of Humanity. All other sciences are but the prelude or the\ndevelopment of this. Before we can enter upon it directly, there\nare two subjects which it is necessary to investigate; our external\ncircumstances, and the organization of our own nature. Social life\ncannot be understood without first understanding the medium in which\nit is developed, and the beings who manifest it. We shall make no\nprogress, therefore, in the final science until we have sufficient\nabstract knowledge of the outer world and of individual life to define\nthe influence of these laws on the special laws of social phenomena.\nAnd this is necessary from the logical as well as from the scientific\npoint of view. The feeble faculties of our intellect require to be\ntrained for the more difficult speculations by practice in the easier.\nFor the same reasons, the study of the inorganic world should take\nprecedence of the organic. For, in the first place, the laws of the\nmore universal mode of existence have a preponderating influence over\nthose of the more special modes; and in the second place it is clearly\nincumbent on us to begin the study of the Positive method with its\nsimplest and most characteristic applications. I need not dwell further\nupon principles so fully established in my former work.\n\nSocial Philosophy, therefore, ought on every ground to be preceded by\nNatural Philosophy in the ordinary sense of the word; that is to say\nby the study of inorganic and organic nature. It is reserved for our\nown century to take in the whole scope of science; but the commencement\nof these preparatory studies dates from the first astronomical\ndiscoveries of antiquity. Natural Philosophy was completed by the\nmodern science of Biology, of which the ancients possessed nothing but\na few statical principles. The dependence of biological conditions upon\nastronomical is very certain. But these two sciences differ too much\nfrom each other and are too indirectly connected to give us an adequate\nconception of Natural Philosophy as a whole. It would be pushing the\nprinciple of condensation too far to reduce it to these two terms. One\nconnecting link was supplied by the science of Chemistry which arose\nin the Middle Ages. The natural succession of Astronomy, Chemistry,\nand Biology leading gradually up to the final science, Sociology, made\nit possible to conceive more or less imperfectly of an intellectual\nsynthesis. But the interposition of Chemistry was not enough: because,\nthough its relation to Biology was intimate, it was too remote from\nAstronomy. For want of understanding the mode in which astronomical\nconditions really affected us, the arbitrary and chimerical fancies\nof astrology were employed, though of course quite valueless except\nfor this temporary purpose. In the seventeenth century, however, the\nscience of Physics specially so called, was founded; and a satisfactory\narrangement of scientific conceptions began to be formed. Physics\nincluded a series of inorganic researches, the more general branch of\nwhich bordered on Astronomy, the more special on Chemistry. To complete\nour view of the scientific hierarchy we have now only to go back to\nits origin, Mathematics; a class of speculations so simple and so\ngeneral, that they passed at once and without effort into the Positive\nstage. Without Mathematics, Astronomy was impossible: and they will\nalways continue to be the starting-point of Positive education for the\nindividual as they have been for the race. Even under the most absolute\ntheological influence they stimulate the Positive spirit to a certain\ndegree of systematic growth. From them it extends step by step to the\nsubjects from which at first it had been most rigidly excluded.\n\nWe see from these brief remarks that the series of the abstract\nsciences naturally arranges itself according to the decrease in\ngenerality and the increase in complication. We see the reason for the\nintroduction of each member of the series, and the mutual connexion\nbetween them. The classification is evidently the same as that before\nlaid down in my theory of development. That theory therefore may be\nregarded, from the statical point of view, as furnishing a direct basis\nfor the co-ordination of Abstract conception, on which, as we have\nseen, the whole synthesis of human life depends. That co-ordination\nat once establishes unity in our intellectual operations. It realizes\nthe desire obscurely expressed by Bacon for a _scala intellect\u00fbs_,\na ladder of the understanding, by the aid of which our thoughts may\npass with ease from the lowest subjects to the highest, or vice versa,\nwithout weakening the sense of their continuous connexion in nature.\nEach of the six terms of which our series is composed is in its central\nportion quite distinct from the two adjoining links; but it is closely\nrelated in its commencement to the preceding term, in its conclusion\nto the term which follows. A further proof of the homogeneousness and\ncontinuity of the system is that the same principle of classification,\nwhen applied more closely, enables us to arrange the various theories\nof which each science consists. For example, the three great orders of\nmathematical speculations, Arithmetic, Geometry, and Mechanics, follow\nthe same law of classification as that by which the entire scale is\nregulated. And I have shown in my _Positive Philosophy_ that the same\nholds good of the other sciences. As a whole, therefore, the series\nis the most concise summary that can be formed of the vast range of\nAbstract truth; and conversely, all rational researches of a special\nkind result in some partial development of this series. Each term in\nit requires its own special processes of induction; yet in each we\nreason deductively from the preceding term, a method which will always\nbe as necessary for purposes of instruction as it was originally for\nthe purpose of discovery. Thus it is that all our other studies are\nbut a preparation for the final science of Humanity. By it their mode\nof culture will always be influenced and will gradually be imbued with\nthe true spirit of generality, which is so closely connected with\nsocial sympathy. Nor is there any danger of such influence becoming\noppressive, since the very principle of our system is to combine a\ndue measure of independence with practical convergence. The fact that\nour theory of classification, by the very terms of its composition,\nsubordinates intellectual to social considerations, is eminently\ncalculated to secure its popular acceptance. It brings the whole\nspeculative system under the criticism, and at the same time under the\nprotection of the public, which is usually not slow to check any abuse\nof those habits of abstraction which are necessary to the philosopher.\n\nThe same theory then which explains the mental evolution of Humanity,\nlays down the true method by which our abstract conceptions should be\nclassified; thus reconciling the conditions of Order and Movement,\nhitherto more or less at variance. Its historical clearness and its\nphilosophical force strengthen each other, for we cannot understand\nthe connexion of our conceptions except by studying the succession of\nthe phases through which they pass. And on the other hand, but for the\nexistence of such a connexion, it would be impossible to explain the\nhistorical phases. So we see that for all sound thinkers, History and\nPhilosophy are inseparable.\n\n [Therefore we are in a\n position to proceed at once\n with the work of social\n regeneration]\n\nA theory which embraces the statical as well as the dynamical aspects\nof the subject, and which fulfils the conditions here spoken of, may\ncertainly be regarded as establishing the true objective basis on\nwhich unity can be established in our intellectual functions. And\nthis unity will be developed and consolidated as our knowledge of its\nbasis becomes more satisfactory. But the social application of the\nsystem will have far more influence on the result than any overstrained\nattempts at exact scientific accuracy. The object of our philosophy\nis to direct the spiritual reorganization of the civilized world. It\nis with a view to this object that all attempts at fresh discovery\nor at improved arrangement should be conducted. Moral and political\nrequirements will lead us to investigate new relations; but the search\nshould not be carried farther than is necessary for their application.\nSufficient for our purpose, if this incipient classification of our\nmental products be so far worked out that the synthesis of Affection\nand of Action may be at once attempted; that is, that we may begin\nat once to construct that system of morality under which the final\nregeneration of Humanity will proceed. Those who have read my _Positive\nPhilosophy_ will, I think, be convinced that the time for this attempt\nhas arrived. How urgently it is needed will appear in every part of the\npresent work.\n\n [Error of identifying\n Positivism with Atheism,\n Materialism, Fatalism,\n or Optimism. Atheism,\n like Theology, discusses\n insoluble mysteries]\n\nI have now described the general spirit of Positivism. But there are\ntwo or three points on which some further explanation is necessary, as\nthey are the source of misapprehensions too common and too serious to\nbe disregarded. Of course I only concern myself with such objections as\nare made in good faith.\n\nThe fact of entire freedom from theological belief being necessary\nbefore the Positive state can be perfectly attained, has induced\nsuperficial observers to confound Positivism with a state of pure\nnegation. Now this state was at one time, and that even so recently as\nthe last century, favourable to progress; but at present in those who\nunfortunately still remain in it, it is a radical obstacle to all sound\nsocial and even intellectual organization. I have long ago repudiated\nall philosophical or historical connexion between Positivism and what\nis called Atheism. But it is desirable to expose the error somewhat\nmore clearly.\n\nAtheism, even from the intellectual point of view, is a very imperfect\nform of emancipation; for its tendency is to prolong the metaphysical\nstage indefinitely, by continuing to seek for new solutions of\nTheological problems, instead of setting aside all inaccessible\nresearches on the ground of their utter inutility. The true Positive\nspirit consists in substituting the study of the invariable Laws of\nphenomena for that of their so-called Causes, whether proximate or\nprimary; in a word, in studying the _How_ instead of the _Why_. Now\nthis is wholly incompatible with the ambitious and visionary attempts\nof Atheism to explain the formation of the Universe, the origin of\nanimal life, etc. The Positivist comparing the various phases of human\nspeculation, looks upon these scientific chimeras as far less valuable\neven from the intellectual point of view than the first spontaneous\ninspirations of primeval times. The principle of Theology is to explain\neverything by supernatural _Wills_. That principle can never be set\naside until we acknowledge the search for _Causes_ to be beyond our\nreach, and limit ourselves to the knowledge of _Laws_. As long as men\npersist in attempting to answer the insoluble questions which occupied\nthe attention of the childhood of our race, by far the more rational\nplan is to do as was done then, that is, simply to give free play to\nthe imagination. These spontaneous beliefs have gradually fallen into\ndisuse, not because they have been disproved, but because mankind has\nbecome more enlightened as to its wants and the scope of its powers,\nand has gradually given an entirely new direction to its speculative\nefforts. If we insist upon penetrating the unattainable mystery of\nthe essential Cause that produces phenomena, there is no hypothesis\nmore satisfactory than that they proceed from Wills dwelling in them\nor outside them; an hypothesis which assimilates them to the effect\nproduced by the desires which exist within ourselves. Were it not for\nthe pride induced by metaphysical and scientific studies, it would\nbe inconceivable that any atheist, modern or ancient, should have\nbelieved that his vague hypotheses on such a subject were preferable\nto this direct mode of explanation. And it was the only mode which\nreally satisfied the reason, until men began to see the utter inanity\nand inutility of all search for absolute truth. The Order of Nature is\ndoubtless very imperfect in every respect; but its production is far\nmore compatible with the hypothesis of an intelligent Will than with\nthat of a blind mechanism. Persistent atheists therefore would seem\nto be most illogical of theologists: because they occupy themselves\nwith theological problems, and yet reject the only appropriate\nmethod of handling them. But the fact is that pure Atheism even in\nthe present day is very rare. What is called Atheism is usually a\nphase of Pantheism, which is really nothing but a relapse disguised\nunder learned terms, into a vague and abstract form of Fetichism.\nAnd it is not impossible that it may lead to the reproduction in one\nform or other of every theological phase as soon as the check which\nmodern society still imposes on metaphysical extravagance has become\nsomewhat weakened. The adoption of such theories as a satisfactory\nsystem of belief, indicates a very exaggerated or rather false view\nof intellectual requirements, and a very insufficient recognition of\nmoral and social wants. It is generally connected with the visionary\nbut mischievous tendencies of ambitious thinkers to uphold what they\ncall the empire of Reason. In the moral sphere it forms a sort of\nbasis for the degrading fallacies of modern metaphysicians as to the\nabsolute preponderance of self-interest. Politically, its tendency is\nto unlimited prolongation of the revolutionary position: its spirit\nis that of blind hatred to the past: and it resists all attempts to\nexplain it on Positive principles, with a view of disclosing the\nfuture. Atheism, therefore, is not likely to lead to Positivism except\nin those who pass through it rapidly as the last and most short-lived\nof metaphysical phases. And the wide diffusion of the scientific\nspirit in the present day makes this passage so easy that to arrive at\nmaturity without accomplishing it, is a symptom of a certain mental\nweakness, which is often connected with moral insufficiency, and is\nvery incompatible with Positivism. Negation offers but a feeble and\nprecarious basis for union: and disbelief in Monotheism is of itself\nno better proof of a mind fit to grapple with the questions of the\nday than disbelief in Polytheism or Fetichism, which no one would\nmaintain to be an adequate ground for claiming intellectual sympathy.\nThe atheistic phase indeed was not really necessary, except for the\nrevolutionists of the last century who took the lead in the movement\ntowards radical regeneration of society. The necessity has already\nceased; for the decayed condition of the old system makes the need of\nregeneration palpable to all. Persistence in anarchy, and Atheism is\nthe most characteristic symptom of anarchy, is a temper of mind more\nunfavourable to the organic spirit, which ought by this time to have\nestablished its influence, than sincere adhesion to the old forms.\nThis latter is of course obstructive: but at least it does not hinder\nus from fixing our attention upon the great social problem. Indeed\nit helps us to do so: because it forces the new philosophy to throw\naside every weapon of attack against the older faith except its own\nhigher capacity of satisfying our moral and social wants. But in the\nAtheism maintained by many metaphysicians and scientific men of the\npresent day, Positivism, instead of wholesome rivalry of this kind,\nwill meet with nothing but barren resistance. Anti-theological as such\nmen may be, they feel unmixed repugnance for any attempts at social\nregeneration, although their efforts in the last century had to some\nextent prepared the way for it. Far, then, from counting upon their\nsupport, Positivists must expect to find them hostile: although from\nthe incoherence of their opinions it will not be difficult to reclaim\nthose of them whose errors are not essentially due to pride.\n\n [Materialism is due to the\n encroachment of the lower\n sciences on the domain of\n the higher: an error which\n Positivism rectifies]\n\nThe charge of Materialism which is often made against Positive\nphilosophy is of more importance. It originates in the course of\nscientific study upon which the Positive system is based. In answering\nthe charge, I need not enter into any discussion of impenetrable\nmysteries. Our theory of development will enable us to see distinctly\nthe real ground of the confusion that exists upon the subject.\n\nPositive science was for a long time limited to the simplest subjects:\nit could not reach the highest except by a natural series of\nintermediate steps. As each of these steps is taken, the student is\napt to be influenced too strongly by the methods and results of the\npreceding stage. Here, as it seems to me, lies the real source of that\nscientific error which men have instinctively blamed as _materialism_.\nThe name is just, because the tendency indicated is one which degrades\nthe higher subjects of thought by confounding them with the lower. It\nwas hardly possible that this usurpation by one science of the domain\nof another should have been wholly avoided. For since the more special\nphenomena do really depend upon the more general, it is perfectly\nlegitimate for each science to exercise a certain deductive influence\nupon that which follows it in the scale. By such influence the special\ninductions of that science were rendered more coherent. The result,\nhowever, is that each of the sciences has to undergo a long struggle\nagainst the encroachments of the one preceding it; a struggle which,\neven in the case of the subjects which have been studied longest, is\nnot yet over. Nor can it entirely cease until the controlling influence\nof sound philosophy be established over the whole scale, introducing\njuster views of the relations of its several parts, about which at\npresent there is such irrational confusion. Thus it appears that\nMaterialism is a danger inherent in the mode in which the scientific\nstudies necessary as a preparation for Positivism were pursued.\nEach science tended to absorb the one next to it, on the ground of\nhaving reached the Positive stage earlier and more thoroughly. The\nevil then is really deeper and more extensive than is imagined by\nmost of those who deplore it. It passes generally unnoticed except\nin the highest class of subjects. These doubtless are more seriously\naffected, inasmuch as they undergo the encroaching process from all\nthe rest; but we find the same thing in different degrees, in every\nstep of the scientific scale. Even the lowest step, Mathematics, is\nno exception, though its position would seem at first sight to exempt\nit. To a philosophic eye there is Materialism in the common tendency\nof mathematicians at the present day to absorb Geometry or Mechanics\ninto the Calculus, as well as in the more evident encroachments of\nMathematics upon Physics, of Physics upon Chemistry, of Chemistry,\nwhich is more frequent, upon Biology, or lastly in the common tendency\nof the best biologists to look upon Sociology as a mere corollary of\ntheir own science. In all cases it is the same fundamental error:\nthat is, an exaggerated use of deductive reasoning; and in all it is\nattended with the same result; that the higher studies are in constant\ndanger of being disorganized by the indiscriminate application of the\nlower. All scientific specialists at the present time are more or less\nmaterialists, according as the phenomena studied by them are more or\nless simple and general. Geometricians, therefore, are more liable to\nthe error than any others; they all aim consciously or otherwise at a\nsynthesis in which the most elementary studies, those of Number, Space,\nand Motion, are made to regulate all the rest. But the biologists who\nresist this encroachment most energetically, are often guilty of the\nsame mistake. They not unfrequently attempt, for instance, to explain\nall sociological facts by the influence of climate and race, which\nare purely secondary; thus showing their ignorance of the fundamental\nlaws of Sociology, which can only be discovered by a series of direct\ninductions from history.\n\nThis philosophical estimate of Materialism explains how it is that\nit has been brought as a charge against Positivism, and at the same\ntime proves the deep injustice of the charge. Positivism, far from\ncountenancing so dangerous an error, is, as we have seen, the only\nphilosophy which can completely remove it. The error arises from\ncertain tendencies which are in themselves legitimate, but which have\nbeen carried too far; and Positivism satisfies these tendencies in\ntheir due measure. Hitherto the evil has remained unchecked, except by\nthe theologico-metaphysical spirit, which, by giving rise to what is\ncalled Spiritualism, has rendered a very valuable service. But useful\nas it has been, it could not arrest the active growth of Materialism,\nwhich has assumed in the eyes of modern thinkers something of a\nprogressive character, from having been so long connected with the\ncause of resistance to a retrograde system. Notwithstanding all the\nprotests of the spiritualists, the lower sciences have encroached upon\nthe higher to an extent that seriously impairs their independence and\ntheir value. But Positivism meets the difficulty far more effectually.\nIt satisfies and reconciles all that is really tenable in the rival\nclaims of both Materialism and Spiritualism; and, having done this,\nit discards them both. It holds the one to be as dangerous to Order\nas the other to Progress. This result is an immediate consequence of\nthe establishment of the encyclop\u00e6dic scale, in which each science\nretains its own proper sphere of induction, while deductively it\nremains subordinate to the science which precedes it. But what really\ndecides the matter is the fact that such paramount importance, both\nlogically and scientifically, is given by Positive Philosophy to social\nquestions. For these are the questions in which the influence of\nMaterialism is most mischievous, and also in which it is most easily\nintroduced. A system therefore which gives them the precedence over all\nother questions must hold Materialism to be quite as obstructive as\nSpiritualism, since both are alike an obstacle to the progress of that\nscience for the sake of which all other sciences are studied. Further\nadvance in the work of social regeneration implies the elimination of\nboth of them, because it cannot proceed without exact knowledge of\nthe laws of moral and social phenomena. In the next chapter I shall\nhave to speak of the mischievous effects of Materialism upon the Art\nor practice of social life. It leads to a misconception of the most\nfundamental principle of that Art, namely, the systematic separation\nof spiritual and temporal power. To maintain that separation, to carry\nout on a more satisfactory basis the admirable attempt made in the\nMiddle Ages by the Catholic Church, is the most important of political\nquestions. Thus the antagonism of Positivism to Materialism rests upon\npolitical no less than upon philosophical grounds.\n\nWith the view of securing a dispassionate consideration of this\nsubject, and of avoiding all confusion, I have laid no stress upon the\ncharge of immorality that is so often brought against Materialism.\nThe reproach, even when made sincerely, is constantly belied by\nexperience, indeed it is inconsistent with all that we know of human\nnature. Our opinions, whether right or wrong, have not, fortunately,\nthe absolute power over our feelings and conduct which is commonly\nattributed to them. Materialism has been provisionally connected\nwith the whole movement of emancipation, and it has therefore often\nbeen found in common with the noblest aspirations. That connexion,\nhowever, has now ceased; and it must be owned that even in the most\nfavourable cases this error, purely intellectual though it be, has to\na certain extent always checked the free play of our nobler instincts,\nby leading men to ignore or misconceive moral phenomena, which were\nleft unexplained by its crude hypothesis. Cabanis gave a striking\nexample of this tendency in his unfortunate attack upon mediaeval\nchivalry.[3] Cabanis was a philosopher whose moral nature was as pure\nand sympathetic as his intellect was elevated and enlarged. Yet the\nmaterialism of his day had entirely blinded him to the beneficial\nresults of the attempts made by the most energetic of our ancestors to\ninstitute the Worship of Woman.\n\nWe have now examined the two principal charges brought against the\nPositive system, and we have found that they apply merely to the\nunsystematic state in which Positive principles are first introduced.\nBut the system is also accused of Fatalism and of Optimism; charges\non which it will not be necessary to dwell at great length, because,\nthough frequently made, they are not difficult to refute.\n\n [Nor is Positivism\n fatalist, since it asserts\n the External Order to be\n modifiable]\n\nThe charge of Fatalism has accompanied every fresh extension of\nPositive science, from its first beginnings. Nor is this surprising;\nfor when any series of phenomena passes from the dominion of Wills,\nwhether modified by metaphysical abstractions or not, to the dominion\nof Laws, the regularity of the latter contrasts so strongly with the\ninstability of the former, as to present an appearance of fatality,\nwhich nothing but a very careful examination of the real character of\nscientific truth can dissipate. And the error is the more likely to\noccur from the fact that our first types of natural laws are derived\nfrom the phenomena of the heavenly bodies. These, being wholly beyond\nour interference, always suggest the notion of absolute necessity, a\nnotion which it is difficult to prevent from extending to more complex\nphenomena, as soon as they are brought within the reach of the Positive\nmethod. And it is quite true that Positivism holds the Order of Nature\nto be in its primary aspects strictly invariable. All variations,\nwhether spontaneous or artificial, are only transient and of secondary\nimport. The conception of unlimited variations would in fact be\nequivalent to the rejection of Law altogether. But while this accounts\nfor the fact that every new Positive theory is accused of Fatalism,\nit is equally clear that blind persistence in the accusation shows a\nvery shallow conception of what Positivism really is. For, unchangeable\nas the Order of Nature is in its main aspects, yet all phenomena,\nexcept those of Astronomy, admit of being modified in their secondary\nrelations, and this the more as they are more complicated. The Positive\nspirit, when confined to the subjects of Mathematics and Astronomy, was\ninevitably fatalist; but this ceased to be the case when it extended to\nPhysics and Chemistry, and especially to Biology, where the margin of\nvariation is very considerable. Now that it embraces Social phenomena,\nthe reproach, however it may have been once deserved, should be heard\nno longer, since these phenomena, which will for the future form its\nprincipal field, admit of larger modification than any others, and that\nchiefly by our own intervention. It is obvious then that Positivism,\nfar from encouraging indolence, stimulates us to action, especially to\nsocial action, far more energetically than any Theological doctrine. It\nremoves all groundless scruples, and prevents us from having recourse\nto chimeras. It encourages our efforts everywhere, except where they\nare manifestly useless.\n\n [The charge of Optimism\n applies to Theology rather\n than to Positivism. The\n positivist judges of\n all historical actions\n _relatively_, but\n does not justify them\n indiscriminately]\n\nFor the charge of Optimism there is even less ground than for that\nof Fatalism. The latter was, to a certain extent, connected with\nthe rise of the Positive spirit; but Optimism is simply a result\nof Theology; and its influence has always been decreasing with the\ngrowth of Positivism. Astronomical laws, it is true, suggest the idea\nof perfection as naturally as that of necessity. On the other hand,\ntheir great simplicity places the defects of the Order of Nature in so\nclear a light, that optimists would never have sought their arguments\nin astronomy, were it not that the first elements of the science had\nto be worked out under the influence of Monotheism, a system which\ninvolved the hypothesis of absolute wisdom. But by the theory of\ndevelopment on which the Positive synthesis is here made to rest,\nOptimism is discarded as well as Fatalism, in the direct proportion\nof the intricacy of the phenomena. It is in the most intricate that\nthe defects of Nature, as well as the power of modifying them, become\nmost manifest. With regard, therefore, to social phenomena, the most\ncomplex of all, both charges are utterly misplaced. Any optimistic\ntendencies that writers on social subjects may display, must be due\nto the fact that their education has not been such as to teach them\nthe nature and conditions of the true scientific spirit. For want\nof sound logical training, great misuse has been made in our own\ntime of a property peculiar to social phenomena. It is that we find\nin them a greater amount of spontaneous wisdom than might have been\nexpected from their complexity. It would be a mistake, however, to\nsuppose this wisdom perfect. The phenomena in question are those of\nintelligent beings who are always occupied in amending the defects\nof their economy. It is obvious, therefore, that they will show less\nimperfection than if, in a case equally complicated, the agents could\nhave been blind. The standard by which to judge of action is always\nto be taken relatively to the social state in which the action takes\nplace. Therefore all historical positions and changes must have at\nleast some grounds of justification; otherwise they would be totally\nincomprehensible, because inconsistent with the nature of the agents\nand of the actions performed by them. Now this naturally fosters a\ndangerous tendency to Optimism in all thinkers, who, whatever their\npowers may be, have not passed through any strict scientific training,\nand have consequently never cast off metaphysical and theological modes\nof thought in the higher subjects. Because every government shows a\ncertain adaptation to the civilization of its time, they make the loose\nassertion that the adaptation is perfect; a conception which is of\ncourse chimerical. But it is unjust to charge Positivism with errors\nwhich are evidently contrary to its true spirit, and merely due to\nthe want of logical and scientific training in those who have hitherto\nengaged in the study of social questions. The object of Sociology is\nto explain all historical facts; not to justify them indiscriminately,\nas is done by those who are unable to distinguish the influence of the\nagent from that of surrounding circumstances.\n\n [The word _Positive_\n connotes all the highest\n intellectual attributes, and\n will ultimately have a moral\n significance]\n\nOn reviewing this brief sketch of the intellectual character of\nPositivism, it will be seen that all its essential attributes\nare summed up in the word _Positive_, which I applied to the new\nphilosophy at its outset. All the languages of Western Europe agree in\nunderstanding by this word and its derivatives the two qualities of\n_reality_ and _usefulness_. Combining these, we get at once an adequate\ndefinition of the true philosophic spirit, which, after all, is nothing\nbut good sense generalized and put into a systematic form. The term\nalso implies in all European languages, _certainty_ and _precision_,\nqualities by which the intellect of modern nations is markedly\ndistinguished from that of antiquity. Again, the ordinary acceptation\nof the term implies a directly _organic_ tendency. Now the metaphysical\nspirit is incapable of organizing; it can only criticize. This\ndistinguishes it from the Positive spirit, although for a time they\nhad a common sphere of action. By speaking of Positivism as organic,\nwe imply that it has a social purpose; that purpose being to supersede\nTheology in the spiritual direction of the human race.\n\nBut the word will bear yet a further meaning. The organic character\nof the system leads us naturally to another of its attributes, namely\nits invariable _relativity_. Modern thinkers will never rise above\nthat critical position which they have hitherto taken up towards the\npast, except by repudiating all absolute principles. This last meaning\nis more latent than the others, but is really contained in the term.\nIt will soon become generally accepted, and the word _Positive_ will\nbe understood to mean relative as much as it now means _organic_,\n_precise_, _certain_, _useful_, and _real_. Thus the highest attributes\nof human wisdom have, with one exception, been gradually condensed\ninto a single expressive term. All that is now wanting is that the\nword should denote what at first could form no part of the meaning,\nthe union of moral with intellectual qualities. At present, only the\nlatter are included; but the course of modern progress makes it certain\nthat the conception implied by the word Positive, will ultimately have\na more direct reference to the heart than to the understanding. For\nit will soon be felt by all that the tendency of Positivism, and that\nby virtue of its primary characteristic, reality, is to make Feeling\nsystematically supreme over Reason as well as over Activity. After all,\nthe change consists simply in realizing the full etymological value of\nthe word _Philosophy_[4]. For it was impossible to realize it until\nmoral and mental conditions had been reconciled; and this has been now\ndone by the foundation of a Positive science of society.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE SOCIAL ASPECT OF POSITIVISM, AS SHOWN BY ITS CONNEXION WITH THE\nGENERAL REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT OF WESTERN EUROPE\n\n\nAs the chief characteristic of Positive Philosophy is the paramount\nimportance that is given, and that on speculative grounds, to social\nconsiderations, its efficiency for the purposes of practical life\nis involved in the very spirit of the system. When this spirit is\nrightly understood, we find that it leads at once to an object far\nhigher than that of satisfying our scientific curiosity; the object,\nnamely, of organizing human life. Conversely, this practical aspect\nof Positive Philosophy exercises the most salutary influence upon its\nspeculative character. By keeping constantly before us the necessity\nof concentrating all scientific efforts upon the social object which\nconstitutes their value, we take the best possible means of checking\nthe tendency inherent in all abstract inquiries to degenerate into\nuseless digressions. But this general connexion between theory and\npractice would not by itself be sufficient for our purpose. It would be\nimpossible to secure the acceptance of a mental discipline, so new and\nso difficult, were it not for considerations derived from the general\nconditions of modern society; considerations calculated to impress\nphilosophers with a more definite sense of obligation to do their\nutmost towards satisfying the wants of the time. By thus arousing\npublic sympathies and showing that the success of Positivism is a\nmatter of permanent and general importance, the coherence of the system\nas well as the elevation of its aims will be placed beyond dispute.\nWe have hitherto been regarding Positivism as the issue in which\nintellectual development necessarily results. We have now to view it\nfrom the social side; for until we have done this, it is impossible to\nform a true conception of it.\n\n [The relation of Positivism\n to the French Revolution]\n\nAnd to do this, all that is here necessary is to point out the close\nrelation in which the new philosophy stands to the whole course\nof the French Revolution. This revolution has now been agitating\nWestern nations for sixty years[5]. It is the final issue of the vast\ntransition through which we have been passing during the five previous\ncenturies.\n\nIn this great crisis there are naturally two principal phases; of\nwhich only the first, or negative, phase has yet been accomplished. In\nit we gave the last blow to the old system, but without arriving at\nany fixed and distinct prospect of the new. In the second or positive\nphase, which is at last beginning, a basis for the new social state\nhas to be constructed. The first phase led as its ultimate result to\nthe formation of a sound philosophical system; and by this system the\nsecond phase will be directed. It is this twofold connexion which we\nare now to consider.\n\n [The negative or destructive\n phase of the Revolution\n stimulated the desire of\n Progress, and consequently\n the study of social\n phenomena]\n\nThe strong reaction which was exercised upon the intellect by the\nfirst great shock of revolution was absolutely necessary to rouse and\nsustain our mental efforts in the search for a new system. For the\ngreatest thinkers of the eighteenth century had been blinded to the\ntrue character of the new state by the effete remnants of the old.\nAnd the shock was especially necessary for the foundation of social\nscience. For the basis of that science is the conception of human\nProgress, a conception which nothing but the Revolution could have\nbrought forward into sufficient prominence.\n\nSocial Order was regarded by the ancients as stationary: and its theory\nunder this provisional aspect was admirably sketched out by the great\nAristotle. In this respect the case of Sociology resembles that of\nBiology. In Biology statical conceptions were attained without the\nleast knowledge of dynamical laws. Similarly, the social speculations\nof antiquity are entirely devoid of the conception of Progress. Their\nhistorical field was too narrow to indicate any continuous movement of\nHumanity. It was not till the Middle Ages that this movement became\nsufficiently manifest to inspire the feeling that we were tending\ntowards a state of increased perfection. It was then seen by all\nthat Catholicism was superior to Polytheism and Judaism; and this\nwas afterwards confirmed by the corresponding political improvement\nproduced by the substitution of Feudalism for Roman government.\nConfused as this first feeling of human Progress was, it was yet very\nintense and very largely diffused; though it lost much of its vitality\nin the theological and metaphysical discussions of later centuries. It\nis here that we must look if we would understand that ardour in the\ncause of Progress which is peculiar to the Western family of nations,\nand which has been strong enough to check many sophistical delusions,\nespecially in the countries where the noble aspirations of the\nMiddle Ages have been least impaired by the metaphysical theories of\nProtestantism or Deism.\n\nBut whatever the importance of this nascent feeling, it was very\nfar from sufficient to establish the conviction of Progress as a\nfundamental principle of human society. To demonstrate any kind of\nprogression, at least three terms are requisite. Now the absolute\ncharacter of theological philosophy, by which the comparison between\nPolytheism and Catholicism was instituted, prevented men from\nconceiving the bare possibility of any further stage. The limits of\nperfection were supposed to have been reached by the mediaeval system,\nand beyond it there was nothing but the Christian Utopia of a future\nlife. The decline of mediaeval theology soon set the imagination free\nfrom any such obstacles; but it led at the same time to a mental\nreaction which for a long time was unfavourable to the development\nof this first conception of Progress. It brought a feeling of blind\nantipathy to the Middle Ages. Almost all thinkers in their dislike of\nthe Catholic dogmas were seized with such irrational admiration for\nAntiquity as entirely to ignore the social superiority of the mediaeval\nsystem; and it was only among the untaught masses, especially in the\ncountries preserved from Protestantism, that any real feeling of this\nsuperiority was retained. It was not till the middle of the seventeenth\ncentury that modern thinkers began to dwell on the conception of\nProgress.\n\nIt re-appeared then under a new aspect. Conclusive evidence had by\nthat time been furnished that the more civilized portion of our\nrace had advanced in science and industry, and even, though not so\nunquestionably, in the fine arts. But these aspects were only partial:\nand though they were undoubtedly the source of the more systematic\nviews held by our own century upon the subject, they were not enough\nto demonstrate the fact of a progression. And indeed, from the social\npoint of view, so far more important than any other, Progress seemed\nmore doubtful than it had been in the Middle Ages.\n\nBut this condition of opinion was changed by the revolutionary shock\nwhich impelled France, the normal centre of Western Europe, to apply\nitself to the task of social regeneration. A third term of comparison,\nthat is to say the type on which modern society is being moulded, now\npresented itself; though it lay as yet in a distant and obscure future.\nCompared with the mediaeval system it was seen to be an advance as\ngreat as that which justified our ancestors of chivalrous times in\nasserting superiority to their predecessors of antiquity. Until the\ndestruction of Catholic Feudalism became an overt fact, its effete\nremnants had concealed the political future, and the fact of continuous\nprogress in society had always remained uncertain. Social phenomena\nhave this peculiarity, that the object observed undergoes a process\nof development as well as and simultaneously with the observer. Now\nup to the time of the Revolution, political development, on which the\nprincipal argument for the theory of Progress must always be based,\ncorresponded in its imperfection to the incapacity of the scientific\nspirit to frame the theory of it. A century ago, thinkers of the\ngreatest eminence were unable to conceive of a really continuous\nprogression; and Humanity, as they thought, was destined to move in\ncircles or in oscillations. But under the influence of the Revolution a\nreal sense of human development has arisen spontaneously and with more\nor less result, in minds of the most ordinary cast; first in France,\nand subsequently throughout the whole of Western Europe. In this\nrespect the crisis has been most salutary; it has given us that mental\ncourage as well as force without which the conception could never have\narisen. It is the basis of social science and therefore of all Positive\nPhilosophy; since it is only from the social aspect that Positive\nPhilosophy admits of being viewed as a connected whole. Without the\ntheory of Progress, the theory of Order, even supposing that it\ncould be formed, would be inadequate as a basis for Sociology. It is\nessential that the two should be combined. The very fact that Progress,\nhowever viewed, is nothing but the development of Order, shows that\nOrder cannot be fully manifested without Progress. The dependence\nof Positivism upon the French Revolution may now be understood more\nclearly. Nor was it by a merely fortuitous coincidence that by this\ntime the introductory course of scientific knowledge by which the mind\nis prepared for Positivism should have been sufficiently completed.\n\nBut we must here observe that, beneficial as the intellectual reaction\nof this great crisis undoubtedly was, its effects could not be realized\nuntil the ardour of the revolutionary spirit had been to some extent\nweakened. The dazzling light thrown upon the Future for some time\nobscured our vision of the Past. It disclosed, though obscurely, the\nthird term of the social progression; but it prevented us from fairly\nappreciating the second term. It encouraged that blind aversion to\nthe Middle Ages, which had been inspired by the emancipating process\nof modern times; a feeling which had once been necessary to induce us\nto abandon the old system. The suppression of this intermediate step\nwould be as fatal to the conception of Progress as the absence of the\nlast; because this last differs too widely from the first to admit\nof any direct comparison with it. Right views upon the subject were\nimpossible therefore until full justice had been rendered to the Middle\nAges, which form at once the point of union and of separation between\nancient and modern history. Now it was quite impossible to do this as\nlong as the excitement of the first years of the revolution lasted. In\nthis respect the philosophical reaction, organized at the beginning\nof our century by the great De Maistre, was of material assistance\nin preparing the true theory of Progress. His school was of brief\nduration, and it was no doubt animated by a retrograde spirit; but it\nwill always be ranked among the necessary antecedents of the Positive\nsystem; although its works are now entirely superseded by the rise of\nthe new philosophy, which in a more perfect form has embodied all their\nchief results.\n\nWhat was required therefore for the discovery of Sociological laws, and\nfor the establishment upon these laws of a sound philosophical system,\nwas an intellect in the vigour of youth, imbued with all the ardour of\nthe revolutionary spirit, and yet spontaneously assimilating all that\nwas valuable in the attempts of the retrograde school to appreciate\nthe historical importance of the Middle Ages. In this way and in no\nother could the true spirit of history arise. For that spirit consists\nin the sense of human continuity, which had hitherto been felt by no\none, not even by my illustrious and unfortunate predecessor Condorcet.\nMeantime the genius of Gall was completing the recent attempts to\nsystematize biology, by commencing the study of the internal functions\nof the brain; as far at least as these could be understood from the\nphenomena of individual as distinct from social development. And now\nI have explained the series of social and intellectual conditions\nby which the discovery of sociological laws, and consequently the\nfoundation of Positivism, was fixed for the precise date at which I\nbegan my philosophical career: that is to say, one generation after\nthe progressive dictatorship of the Convention, and almost immediately\nafter the fall of the retrograde tyranny of Bonaparte.\n\nThus it appears that the revolutionary movement, and the long period\nof reaction which succeeded it, were alike necessary, before the new\ngeneral doctrine could be distinctly conceived of as a whole. And if\nthis preparation was needed for the establishment of Positivism as a\nphilosophical system, far more needful was it for the recognition of\nits social value. For it guaranteed free exposition and discussion of\nopinion: and it led the public to look to Positivism as the system\nwhich contained in germ the ultimate solution of social problems. This\nis a point so obvious that we need not dwell upon it further.\n\nHaving satisfied ourselves of the dependence of Positivism upon the\nfirst phase of the Revolution, we have now to consider it as the future\nguide of the second phase.\n\n [The constructive phase of\n the Revolution. The first\n attempts to construct\n failed, being based on\n destructive principles]\n\nIt is often supposed that the destruction of the old regime was brought\nabout by the Revolution. But history when carefully examined points to\na very different conclusion. It shows that the Revolution was not the\ncause but the consequence of the utter decomposition of the mediaeval\nsystem; a process which had been going on for five centuries throughout\nWestern Europe, and especially in France; spontaneously at first,\nand afterwards in a more systematic way. The Revolution, far from\nprotracting the negative movement of previous centuries, was a bar to\nits further extension. It was a final outbreak in which men showed\ntheir irrevocable purpose of abandoning the old system altogether,\nand of proceeding at once to the task of entire reconstruction. The\nmost conclusive proof of this intention was given by the abolition of\nroyalty; which had been the rallying point of all the decaying remnants\nof the old French constitution. But with this exception, which only\noccupied the Convention during its first sitting, the constructive\ntendencies of the movement were apparent from its outset; and they\nshowed themselves still more clearly as soon as the republican spirit\nhad become predominant. It is obvious, however, that strong as these\ntendencies may have been, the first period of the Revolution produced\nresults of an extremely negative and destructive kind. In fact the\nmovement was in this respect a failure. This is partly to be attributed\nto the pressing necessities of the hard struggle for national\nindependence which France maintained so gloriously against the combined\nattacks of the retrograde nations of Europe. But it is far more largely\nowing to the purely critical character of the metaphysical doctrines by\nwhich the revolutionary spirit was at that time directed.\n\nThe negative and the positive movements which have been going on in\nWestern Europe since the close of the Middle Ages, have been of course\nconnected with each other. But the former has necessarily advanced\nwith greater rapidity than the latter. The old system had so entirely\ndeclined, that a desire for social regeneration had become general,\nbefore the groundwork of the new system had been sufficiently completed\nfor its true character to be understood. As we have just seen, the\ndoctrine by which social regeneration is now to be directed could\nnot have arisen previously to the Revolution. The impulse which the\nRevolution gave to thought was indispensable to its formation. Here\nthen was an insurmountable fatality by which men were forced to make\nuse of the critical principles which had been found serviceable in\nformer struggles, as the only available instruments of construction.\nAs soon as the old order had once been fairly abandoned, there was\nof course no utility whatever in the negative philosophy. But its\ndoctrines had become familiar to men\u2019s minds, and its motto of\n\u2018Liberty and Equality\u2019, was at that time the one most compatible with\nsocial progress. Thus the first stage of the revolutionary movement\nwas accomplished under the influence of principles that had become\nobsolete, and that were quite inadequate to the new task required of\nthem.\n\nFor constructive purposes the revolutionary philosophy was valueless;\nexcept so far as it put forward a vague programme of the political\nfuture founded on sentiment rather than conviction, and unaccompanied\nby any explanation of the right mode of realizing it. In default of\norganic principles the doctrines of the critical school were employed:\nand the result speedily showed their inherent tendency to anarchy; a\ntendency as perilous to the germs of the new order as to the ruins\nof the old. The experiment was tried once for all, and it left such\nineffaceable memories that it is not probable that any serious attempt\nwill be made to repeat it. The incapacity for construction inherent in\nthe doctrine in which the revolutionary spirit had embodied itself was\nplaced beyond the reach of doubt. The result was to impress every one\nwith the urgent necessity for social renovation; but the principles of\nthat renovation were still left undetermined.\n\n [Counter-revolution from\n 1794 to 1830]\n\nIn this condition of philosophical and political opinion, the necessity\nof Order was felt to be paramount, and a long period of reaction\nensued. Dating from the official Deism introduced by Robespierre, it\nreached its height under the aggressive system of Bonaparte, and it was\nfeebly protracted, in spite of the peace of 1815, by his insignificant\nsuccessors. The only permanent result of this period was the historical\nand doctrinal evidence brought forward by De Maistre and his school,\nof the social inutility of modern metaphysics, while at the same time\ntheir intellectual weakness was being proved by the successful attempts\nof Cabanis, and still more of Gall, to extend the Positive method to\nthe highest biological questions. In all other respects this elaborate\nattempt to prevent the final emancipation of Humanity proved a complete\nfailure; in fact, it led to a revival of the instinct of Progress.\nStrong antipathies were roused everywhere by these fruitless efforts\nat reconstructing a system which had become so entirely obsolete, that\neven those who were labouring to rebuild it no longer understood its\ncharacter or the conditions of its existence.\n\nA re-awakening of the revolutionary spirit was thus inevitable; and it\ntook place as soon as peace was established, and the chief upholder\nof the retrograde system had been removed. The doctrines of negation\nwere called back to life; but very little illusion now remained as\nto their capacity for organizing. In want of something better, men\naccepted them as a means of resisting retrograde principles, just as\nthese last had owed their apparent success to the necessity of checking\nthe tendency to anarchy. Amidst these fresh debates on worn-out\nsubjects, the public soon became aware that a final solution of the\nquestion had not yet arisen even in germ. It therefore concerned itself\nfor little except the maintenance of Order and Liberty; conditions\nas indispensable for the free action of philosophy as for material\nprosperity. The whole position was most favourable for the construction\nof a definite solution; and it was, in fact, during the last phase of\nthe retrograde movement that the elementary principle of a solution\nwas furnished, by my discovery, in 1822, of the two-fold law of\nintellectual development.\n\n [Political stagnation\n between 1830 and 1848]\n\nThe apparent indifference of the public, to whom all the existing\nparties seemed equally devoid of insight into the political future,\nwas at last mistaken by a blind government for tacit consent to its\nunwise schemes. The cause of Progress was in danger. Then came the\nmemorable crisis of 1830, by which the system of reaction, introduced\nthirty-six years previously, was brought to an end. The convictions\nwhich that system inspired were indeed so superficial, that its\nsupporters came of their own accord to disavow them, and to uphold in\ntheir own fashion the chief revolutionary doctrines. These again were\nabandoned by their previous supporters on their accession to power.\nWhen the history of these times is written, nothing will give a clearer\nview of the revulsion of feeling on both sides, than the debates which\ntook place on Liberty of Education. Within a period of twenty years,\nit was alternately demanded and refused by both; and this in behalf of\nthe same principles, as they were called, though it was in reality a\nquestion of interest rather than principle on either side.\n\nAll previous convictions being thus thoroughly upset, more room was\nleft for the instinctive feeling of the public; and the question of\nreconciling the spirit of Order with that of Progress now came into\nprominence. It was the most important of all problems, and it was now\nplaced in its true light. But this only made the absence of a solution\nmore manifest; and the principle of the solution existed nowhere but in\nPositivism, which as yet was immature. All the opinions of the day had\nbecome alike utterly incompatible both with Order and with Progress.\nThe Conservative school undertook to reconcile the two; but it had no\nconstructive power; and the only result of its doctrine was to give\nequal encouragement to anarchy and to reaction, so as to be able always\nto neutralize the one by the other. The establishment of Constitutional\nMonarchy was now put forward as the ultimate issue of the great\nRevolution. But no one could seriously place any real confidence in a\nsystem so alien to the whole character of French history, offering as\nit did nothing but a superficial and unwise imitation of a political\nanomaly essentially peculiar to England.\n\nThe period then between 1830 and 1848 may be regarded as a natural\npause in the political movement. The reaction which succeeded the\noriginal crisis had exhausted itself; but the final or organic phase\nof the Revolution was still delayed for want of definite principles\nto guide it. No conception had been formed of it, except by a small\nnumber of philosophic minds who had taken their stand upon the\nrecently established laws of social science, and had found themselves\nable, without recourse to any chimerical views, to gain some general\ninsight into the political future, of which Condorcet, my principal\npredecessor, knew so little. But it was impossible for the regenerating\ndoctrine to spread more widely and to be accepted as the peaceful\nsolution of social problems, until a distinct refutation had been given\nof the false assertion so authoritatively made that the parliamentary\nsystem was the ultimate issue of the Revolution. This notion once\ndestroyed, the work of spiritual reorganization should be left entirely\nto the free efforts of independent thinkers. In these respects our last\npolitical change (1848) will have accomplished all that is required.\n\n [The present position,\n 1848-1850. Republicanism\n involves the great principle\n of subordinating Politics to\n Morals]\n\nThanks to the instinctive sense and vigour of our working classes, the\nreactionist leanings of the Orleanist government, which had become\nhostile to the purpose for which it was originally instituted, have\nat last brought about the final abolition of monarchy in France. The\nprestige of monarchy had long been lost, and it now only impeded\nProgress, without being of any real benefit to Order. By its fictitious\nsupremacy it directly hindered the work of spiritual reformation,\nwhilst the measure of real power which it possessed was insufficient to\ncontrol the wretched political agitation maintained by animosities of a\npurely personal character.\n\nViewed negatively, the principle of Republicanism sums up the first\nphase of the Revolution. It precludes the possibility of recurrence\nto Royalism, which, ever since the second half of the reign of Louis\nXIV, has been the rallying point of all reactionist tendencies.\nInterpreting the principle in its positive sense, we may regard it as a\ndirect step towards the final regeneration of society. By consecrating\nall human forces of whatever kind to the general service of the\ncommunity, republicanism recognizes the doctrine of subordinating\nPolitics to Morals. Of course it is as a feeling rather than as a\nprinciple that this doctrine is at present adopted; but it could not\nobtain acceptance in any other way; and even when put forward in a\nmore systematic shape, it is upon the aid of feeling that it will\nprincipally rely, as I have shown in the previous chapter. In this\nrespect France has proved worthy of her position as the leader of the\ngreat family of Western nations, and has in reality already entered\nupon the normal state. Without the intervention of any theological\nsystem, she has asserted the true principle on which society should\nrest, a principle which originated in the Middle Ages under the impulse\nof Catholicism; but for the general acceptance of which a sounder\nphilosophy and more suitable circumstances were necessary. The direct\ntendency, then, of the French Republic is to sanction the fundamental\nprinciple of Positivism, the preponderance, namely, of Feeling over\nIntellect and Activity. Starting from this point, public opinion will\nsoon be convinced that the work of organizing society on republican\nprinciples is one which can only be performed by the new philosophy.\n\n [It gives prominence to the\n problem of reconciling Order\n and Progress]\n\nThe whole position brings into fuller prominence the fundamental\nproblem previously proposed, of reconciling Order and Progress. The\nurgent necessity of doing so is acknowledged by all; but the utter\nincapacity of any of the existing schools of opinion to realize it\nbecomes increasingly evident. The abolition of monarchy removes the\nmost important obstacle to social Progress: but at the same time it\ndeprives us of the only remaining guarantee for public Order. Thus the\ntime is doubly favourable to constructive tendencies; yet at present\nthere are no opinions which possess more than the purely negative value\nof checking, and that very imperfectly, the error opposite to their\nown. In a position which guarantees Progress and compromises Order, it\nis naturally for the latter that the greatest anxiety is felt; and we\nare still without any organ capable of systematically defending it. Yet\nexperience should have taught us how extremely fragile every government\nmust be which is purely material, that is, which is based solely upon\nself-interest, and is destitute of sympathies and convictions. On\nthe other hand, spiritual order is not to be hoped for at present in\nthe absence of any doctrine which commands general respect. Even the\nsocial instinct is a force on the political value of which we cannot\nalways rely: for when not based on some definite principle, it not\nunfrequently becomes source of disturbance. Hence we are driven back\nto the continuance of a material system of government, although its\ninadequacy is acknowledged by all. In a republic, however, such a\ngovernment cannot employ its most efficient instrument, corruption.\nIt has to resort instead to repressive measures of a more or less\ntransitory kind, every time that the danger of anarchy becomes too\nthreatening. These occasional measures, however, naturally proportion\nthemselves to the necessities of the case. Thus, though Order is\nexposed to greater perils than Progress, it can count on more powerful\nresources for its defence. Shortly after the publication of the first\nedition of this work, the extraordinary outbreak of June, 1848, proved\nthat the republic could call into play, and, indeed, could push to\nexcess, in the cause of public Order, forces far greater than those\nof the monarchy. Thus royalty no longer possesses that monopoly of\npreserving Order, which has hitherto induced a few sincere and thinking\nmen to continue to support it; and henceforth the sole political\ncharacteristic which it retains is that of obstructing Progress. And\nyet by another reaction of this contradictory position of affairs,\nthe monarchical party seems at present to have become the organ of\nresistance in behalf of material Order. Retrograde as its doctrines\nare, yet from their still retaining a certain organic tendency, the\nconservative instincts rally round them. To this the progressive\ninstincts offer no serious obstacle, their insufficiency for the\npresent needs being more or less distinctly recognized. It is not to\nthe monarchical party, however, that we must look for conservative\nprinciples; for in this quarter they are wholly abandoned, and\nunhesitating adoption of every revolutionary principle is resorted to\nas a means of retaining power; so that the doctrines of the Revolution\nwould seem fated to close their existence in the retrograde camp.\nSo urgent is the need of Order that we are driven to accept for the\nmoment a party which has lost all its old convictions, and which\nhad apparently become extinct before the Republic began. Positivism\nand Positivism alone can disentangle and terminate this anomalous\nposition. The principle on which it depends is manifestly this: As\nlong as Progress tends towards anarchy, so long will Order continue to\nbe retrograde. But the retrograde movement never really attains its\nobject: indeed its principles are always neutralized by inconsistent\nconcessions. Judged by the boastful language of its leaders, we might\nimagine that it was destroying republicanism; whereas the movement\nwould not exist at all, but for the peculiar circumstances in which\nwe are placed; circumstances which are forced into greater prominence\nby the foolish opposition of most of the authorities. As soon as the\ninstinct of political improvement has placed itself under systematic\nguidance, its growth will bear down all resistance; and then the reason\nof its present stagnation will be patent to all.\n\n [It brings the metaphysical\n revolutionary schools into\n discredit]\n\nAnd for this Theologism is, unawares, preparing the way. Its apparent\npreponderance places Positivism in precisely that position which\nI wished for ten years ago. The two organic principles can now be\nbrought side by side, and their relative strength tested, without the\ncomplication of any metaphysical considerations. For the incoherence\nof metaphysical systems is now recognized, and they are finally\ndecaying under the very political system which seemed at one time\nlikely to promote their acceptance. Construction is seen by all\nto be the thing wanted: and men are rapidly becoming aware of the\nutter hollowness of all schools which confine themselves to protests\nagainst the institutions of theologism, while admitting its essential\nprinciples. So defunct, indeed, have these schools become, that they\ncan no longer fulfil even their old office of destruction. This has\nfallen now as an accessory task upon Positivism, which offers the only\nsystematic guarantee against retrogression as well as against anarchy.\nPsychologists, strictly so called, have already for the most part\ndisappeared with the fall of constitutional monarchy; so close is the\nrelation between these two importations from Protestantism. It seemed\nlikely therefore that the Ideologists, their natural rivals, would\nregain their influence with the people. But even they cannot win back\nthe confidence reposed in them during the great Revolution, because\nthe doctrines in virtue of which it was then given are now so utterly\nexploded. The most advanced of their number, unworthy successors of\nthe school of Voltaire and Danton, have shown themselves thoroughly\nincapable either morally or intellectually of directing the second\nphase of the Revolution, which they are hardly able to distinguish\nfrom the first phase. Formerly I had taken as their type a man of\nfar superior merit, the noble Armand Carrel, whose death was such a\ngrievous loss to the republican cause. But he was a complete exception\nto the general rule. True republican convictions were impossible\nwith men who had been schooled in parliamentary intrigues, and who\nhad directed or aided the pertinacious efforts of the French press\nto rehabilitate the name of Bonaparte. Their accession to power was\nfutile; for they could only maintain material order by calling in\nthe retrograde party; and they soon became mere auxiliaries of this\nparty, disgracefully abjuring all their philosophical convictions.\nThere is one proceeding which, though it is but an episode in the\ncourse of events, will always remain as a test of the true character\nof this unnatural alliance. I allude to the Roman expedition of 1849;\na detestable and contemptible act, for which just penalties will\nspeedily be imposed on all who were accessory to it; not to speak of\nthe damnatory verdict of history. But precisely the same hypocritical\nopposition to progress has been exhibited by the other class of\nDeists, the disciples, that is, of Rousseau, who profess to adopt\nRobespierre\u2019s policy. Having had no share in the government, they have\nnot so entirely lost their hold upon the people; but they are at the\npresent time totally devoid of political coherence. Their wild anarchy\nis incompatible with the general tone of feeling maintained by the\nindustrial activity, the scientific spirit, and the esthetic culture of\nmodern life. These Professors of the Guillotine, as they may be called,\nwhose superficial sophisms would reduce exceptional outbreaks of\npopular fury into a cold-blooded system, soon found themselves forced,\nfor the sake of popularity, to sanction the law which very properly\nabolished capital punishment for political offences. In the same way\nthey are now obliged to disown the only real meaning of the red flag\nwhich serves to distinguish their party, too vague as it is for any\nother name. Equally wrong have they shown themselves in interpreting\nthe tendencies of the working classes, from being so entirely taken\nup with questions of abstract rights. The people have allowed these\nrights to be taken from them without a struggle whenever the cause of\nOrder has seemed to require it; yet they still persist, mechanically,\nin maintaining that it is on questions of this sort that the solution\nof all our difficulties depends. Taking for their political ideal a\nshort and anomalous period of our history which is never likely to\nrecur, they are always attempting to suppress liberty for the sake of\nwhat they call progress. In a time of unchangeable peace they are the\nonly real supporters of war. Their conception of the organization of\nlabour is simply to destroy the industrial hierarchy of capitalist\nand workman established in the Middle Ages; and, in fact, in every\nrespect these sophistical anarchists are utterly out of keeping with\nthe century in which they live. There are some, it is true, who still\nretain a measure of influence with the working classes, incapable and\nunworthy though they be of their position. But their credit is rapidly\ndeclining; and it is not likely to become dangerous at a time when\npolitical enthusiasm is no longer to be won by metaphysical prejudices.\nThe only effect really produced by this party of disorder, is to\nserve as a bugbear for the benefit of the retrograde party, who thus\nobtain official support from the middle class, in a way which is quite\ncontrary to all the principles and habits of that class. It is very\nimprobable that these foolish levellers will ever succeed to power.\nShould they do so, however, their reign will be short, and will soon\nresult in their final extinction; because it will convince the people\nof their profound incapacity to direct the regeneration of Europe. The\nposition of affairs, therefore, is now distinct and clear; and it is\nleading men to withdraw their confidence from all metaphysical schools,\nas they had already withdrawn it from theology. In this general\ndiscredit of all the old systems the way becomes clear for Positivism,\nthe only school which harmonizes with the real tendencies as well as\nwith the essential needs of the nineteenth century.\n\n [And it proves to all\n the necessity of a true\n spiritual power; a body of\n thinkers whose business\n is to study and to teach\n principles, holding aloof\n from political action]\n\nIn this explanation of the recent position of French affairs one point\nyet remains to be insisted on. We have seen from the general course\nof the philosophical, and yet more of the political, movement, the\nurgent necessity for a universal doctrine capable of checking erroneous\naction, and of avoiding or moderating popular outbreaks. But there is\nanother need equally manifest, the need of a spiritual power, without\nwhich it would be utterly impossible to bring our philosophy to bear\nupon practical life. Widely divergent as the various metaphysical\nsects are, there is one point in which they all spontaneously agree;\nthat is, in repudiating the distinction between temporal and spiritual\nauthority. This has been the great revolutionary principle ever\nsince the fourteenth century, and more especially since the rise of\nProtestantism. It originated in repugnance to the mediaeval system.\nThe so-called philosophers of our time, whether psychologists or\nideologists, have, like their Greek predecessors, always aimed at a\ncomplete concentration of all social powers; and they have even spread\nthis delusion among the students of special sciences. At present there\nis no appreciation, except in the Positive system, of that instinctive\nsagacity which led all the great men of the Middle Ages to institute,\nfor the first time, the separation of moral from political authority.\nIt was a masterpiece of human wisdom; but it was premature, and could\nnot be permanently successful at a time when men were still governed on\ntheological principles, and practical life still retained its military\ncharacter. This separation of powers, on which the final organization\nof society will principally depend, is understood and valued nowhere\nbut in the new school of philosophy, if we except the unconscious and\ntacit admiration for it which still exists in the countries from which\nProtestantism has been excluded. From the outset of the Revolution,\nthe pride of theorists has always made them wish to become socially\ndespotic; a state of things to which they have ever looked forward as\ntheir political ideal. Public opinion has by this time grown far too\nenlightened to allow any practical realization of a notion at once\nso chimerical and so retrograde. But public opinion not being as yet\nsufficiently organized, efforts in this direction are constantly being\nmade. The longing among metaphysical reformers for practical as well\nas theoretical supremacy is now greater than ever; because, from the\nchanged state of affairs, their ambition is no longer limited to mere\nadministrative functions. Their various views diverge so widely, and\nall find so little sympathy in the public, that there is not much\nfear of their ever being able to check free discussion to any serious\nextent, by giving legal sanction to their own particular doctrine. But\nquite enough has been attempted to convince every one how essentially\ndespotic every theory of society must be which opposes this fundamental\nprinciple of modern polity, the permanent separation of spiritual\nfrom temporal power. The disturbances caused by metaphysical ambition\ncorroborate, then, the view urged so conclusively by the adherents of\nthe new school, that this division of powers is equally essential to\nOrder and to Progress. If Positivist thinkers continue to withstand\nall temptations to mix actively in politics, and go on quietly with\ntheir own work amidst the unmeaning agitation around them, they will\nultimately make the impartial portion of the public familiar with\nthis great conception. It will henceforth be judged irrespectively of\nthe religious doctrines with which it was originally connected. Men\nwill involuntarily contrast it with other systems, and will see more\nand more clearly that Positive principles afford the only basis for\ntrue freedom as well as for true union. They alone can tolerate full\ndiscussion, because they alone rest upon solid proof. Men\u2019s practical\nwisdom, guided by the peculiar nature of our political position, will\nreact strongly upon philosophers, and keep them strictly to their\nsphere of moral and intellectual influence. The slightest tendency\ntowards the assumption of political power will be checked, and the\ndesire for it will be considered as a certain sign of mental weakness,\nand indeed of moral deficiency. Now that royalty is abolished, all\ntrue thinkers are secure of perfect freedom of thought, and even of\nexpression, as long as they abide by the necessary conditions of\npublic order. Royalty was the last remnant of the system of castes,\nwhich gave the monopoly of deciding on important social questions to\na special family; its abolition completes the process of theological\nemancipation. Of course the magistrates of a republic may show despotic\ntendencies; but they can never become very dangerous where power is\nheld on so brief a tenure, and where, even when concentrated in a\nsingle person, it emanates from suffrage, incompetent as that may be.\nIt is easy for the Positivist to show that these functionaries know\nvery little more than their constituents of the logical and scientific\nconditions necessary for the systematic working out of moral and social\ndoctrines. Such authorities, though devoid of any spiritual sanction,\nmay, however, command obedience in the name of Order. But they can\nnever be really respected, unless they adhere scrupulously to their\ntemporal functions, without claiming the least authority over thought.\nEven before the central power falls into the hands of men really fit to\nwield it, the republican character of our government will have forced\nthis conviction upon a nation that has now got rid of all political\nfanaticism, whether of a retrograde or anarchical kind. And the\nconviction is the more certain to arise, because practical authorities\nwill become more and more absorbed in the maintenance of material\norder, and will therefore leave the question of spiritual order to the\nunrestricted efforts of thinkers. It is neither by accident nor by\npersonal influence that I have myself always enjoyed so large a measure\nof freedom in writing, and subsequently in public lectures, and this\nunder governments all of which were more or less oppressive. Every\ntrue philosopher will receive the same licence, if, like myself, he\noffers the intellectual and moral guarantees which the public and the\ncivil power are fairly entitled to expect from the systematic organs of\nHumanity. The necessity of controlling levellers may lead to occasional\nacts of unwise violence. But I am convinced that respect will always be\nshown to constructive thinkers, and that they will soon be called in to\nthe assistance of public order. For order will not be able to exist\nmuch longer without the sanction of some rational principle.\n\n [The need of a spiritual\n power is common to the whole\n Republic of Western Europe]\n\nThe result, then, of the important political changes which have\nrecently taken place is this. The second phase of the Revolution, which\nhitherto has been restricted to a few advanced minds, is now entered\nby the public, and men are rapidly forming juster views of its true\ncharacter. It is becoming recognized that the only firm basis for a\nreform of our political institutions, is a complete reorganization of\nopinion and of life; and the way is open for the new religious doctrine\nto direct this work. I have thus explained the way in which the social\nmission of Positivism connects itself with the spontaneous changes\nwhich are taking place in France, the centre of the revolutionary\nmovement. But it would be a mistake to suppose that France will be the\nonly scene of these reorganizing efforts. Judging on sound historical\nprinciples, we cannot doubt that they will embrace the whole extent of\nWestern Europe.\n\nDuring the five centuries of revolutionary transition which have\nelapsed since the Middle Ages, we have lost sight of the fact that\nin all fundamental questions the Western nations form one political\nsystem. It was under Catholic Feudalism that they were first united; a\nunion for which their incorporation into the Roman empire had prepared\nthem, and which was finally organized by the incomparable genius of\nCharlemagne. In spite of national differences, embittered as they were\nafterwards by theological discord, this great Republic has in modern\ntimes shown intellectual and social growth both in the positive and\nnegative direction, to which other portions of the human race, even\nin Europe, can show no parallel. The rupture of Catholicism, and\nthe decline of Chivalry, at first seriously impaired this feeling\nof relationship. But it soon began to show itself again under new\nforms. It rests now, though the basis is inadequate, upon the feeling\nof community in industrial development, in esthetic culture, and in\nscientific discovery. Amidst the disorganized state of political\naffairs, which have obviously been tending towards some radical change,\nthis similarity in civilization has produced a growing conviction\nthat we are all participating in one and the same social movement;\na movement limited as yet to our own family of nations. The first\nstep in the great crisis was necessarily taken by the French nation,\nbecause it was better prepared than any other. It was there that the\nold order of things had been most thoroughly uprooted, and that most\nhad been done in working out the materials of the new. But the strong\nsympathies which the outbreak of our revolution aroused in every part\nof Western Europe, showed that our sister-nations were only granting\nus the honourable post of danger in a movement in which all the nobler\nportion of Humanity was to participate. And this was the feeling\nproclaimed by the great republican assembly in the midst of their war\nof defence. The military extravagances which followed, and which form\nthe distinguishing feature of the counter-revolution, of course checked\nthe feeling of union on both sides. But so deeply was it rooted in\nall the antecedents of modern history that peace soon restored it to\nlife, in spite of the pertinacious efforts of all parties interested in\nmaintaining unnatural separation between France and other countries.\nWhat greatly facilitates this tendency is the decline of every form\nof theology, which removes the chief source of former disagreement.\nDuring the last phase of the counter-revolution, and still more during\nthe long pause in the political movement which followed, each member\nof the group entered upon a series of revolutionary efforts more or\nless resembling those of the central nation. And our recent political\nchanges cannot but strengthen this tendency; though of course with\nnations less fully prepared the results of these efforts have at\npresent been less important than in France. Meanwhile it is evident\nthat this uniform condition of internal agitation gives increased\nsecurity for peace, by which its extension had been originally\nfacilitated. And thus, although there is no organized international\nunion as was the case in the Middle Ages, yet the pacific habits and\nintellectual culture of modern life have already been sufficiently\ndiffused to call out an instinct of fraternity stronger than any that\nhas ever existed before. It is strong enough to prevent the subject\nof social regeneration from being ever regarded as a merely national\nquestion.\n\nAnd this is the point of view which displays the character of the\nsecond phase of the Revolution in its truest light. The first phase,\nalthough in its results advantageous to the other nations, was\nnecessarily conducted as if peculiar to France, because no other\ncountry was ripe for the original outbreak. Indeed French nationality\nwas stimulated by the necessity of resisting the counter-revolutionary\ncoalition. But the final and constructive phase which has begun now\nthat the national limits of the crisis have been reached, should always\nbe regarded as common to the whole of Western Europe. For it consists\nessentially in spiritual reorganization; and the need of this in one\nshape or other presses already with almost equal force upon each of the\nfive nations who make up the great Western family. Conversely, the\nmore occidental the character of the reforming movement, the greater\nwill be the prominence given to intellectual and moral regeneration\nas compared with mere modifications of government, in which of course\nthere must be very considerable national differences. The first social\nneed of Western Europe is community in belief and in habits of life;\nand this must be based upon a uniform system of education controlled\nand applied by a spiritual power that shall be accepted by all. This\nwant satisfied, the reconstruction of governments may be carried out in\naccordance with the special requirements of each nation. Difference in\nthis respect is legitimate: it will not affect the essential unity of\nthe Positivist Republic, which will be bound together by more complete\nand durable ties than the Catholic Republic of the Middle Ages.\n\nNot only then do we find from the whole condition of Western Europe\nthat the movement of opinion transcends in importance all political\nagitation; but we find that everything points to the necessity of\nestablishing a spiritual power, as the sole means of directing\nthis free yet systematic reform of opinion and of life with the\nrequisite consistency and largeness of view. We now see that the old\nrevolutionary prejudice of confounding temporal and spiritual power\nis directly antagonistic to social regeneration, although it once\naided the preparation for it. In the first place it stimulates the\nsense of nationality which ought to be subordinate to larger feelings\nof international fraternity. And at the same time, with the view of\nsatisfying the conditions of uniformity which are so obviously required\nfor the solution of the common problem, it induces efforts at forcible\nincorporation of all the nations into one, efforts as dangerous as\nthey are fruitless.\n\n [This Republic consists\n of the Italian, Spanish,\n British, and German\n populations, grouped round\n France as their centre]\n\nMy work on Positive Philosophy contains a detailed historical\nexplanation of what I mean by the expression, Western Europe. But the\nconception is one of such importance in relation to the questions of\nour time, that I shall now proceed to enumerate and arrange in their\norder the elements of which this great family of nations consists.\n\nSince the fall of the Roman empire, and more especially from the time\nof Charlemagne, France has always been the centre, socially as well as\ngeographically, of this Western region which may be called the nucleus\nof Humanity. On the one great occasion of united political action on\nthe part of Western Europe, that is, in the crusades of the eleventh\nand twelfth century, it was evidently France that took the initiative.\nIt is true that when the decomposition of Catholicism began to assume a\nsystematic form, the centre of the movement for two centuries shifted\nits position. It was Germany that gave birth to the metaphysical\nprinciples of negation. Their first political application was in the\nDutch and English revolutions, which, incomplete as they were, owing to\ninsufficient intellectual preparation, yet served as preludes to the\ngreat final crisis. These preludes were most important, as showing the\nreal social tendency of the critical doctrines. But it was reserved for\nFrance to co-ordinate these doctrines into a consistent system and to\npropagate them successfully. France then resumed her position as the\nprincipal centre in which the great moral and political questions were\nto be worked out. And this position she will in all probability retain,\nas in fact it is only a recurrence to the normal organization of the\nWestern Republic, which had been temporarily modified to meet special\nconditions. A fresh displacement of the centre of the social movement\nis not to be expected, unless in a future too distant to engage our\nattention. It can indeed only be the result of wide extension of our\nadvanced civilization beyond European limits, as will be explained in\nthe conclusion of this work.\n\nNorth and south of this natural centre, we find two pairs of nations,\nbetween which France will always form an intermediate link, partly from\nher geographical position, and also from her language and manners. The\nfirst pair is for the most part Protestant. It comprises, first, the\ngreat Germanic body, with the numerous nations that may be regarded\nas its offshoots; especially Holland, which, since the Middle Ages,\nhas been in every respect the most advanced portion of Germany.\nSecondly, Great Britain, with which may be classed the United States,\nnotwithstanding their present attitude of rivalry. The second pair is\nexclusively Catholic. It consists of the great Italian nationality,\nwhich in spite of political divisions has always maintained its\ndistinct character; and of the population of the Spanish Peninsula\n(for Portugal, sociologically considered, is not to be separated from\nSpain), which has so largely increased the Western family by its\ncolonies. To complete the conception of this group of advanced nations,\nwe must add two accessory members, Greece and Poland, countries which,\nthough situated in Eastern Europe, are connected with the West, the\none by ancient history, the other by modern. Besides these, there are\nvarious intermediate nationalities which I need not now enumerate,\nconnecting or demarcating the more important branches of the family.\n\nIn this vast Republic it is that the new philosophy is to find its\nsphere of intellectual and moral action. It will endeavour so to modify\nthe initiative of the central nation, by the reacting influences\nof the other four, as to give increased efficiency to the general\nmovement. It is a task eminently calculated to test the social\ncapabilities of Positivism, and for which no other system is qualified.\nThe metaphysical spirit is as unfit for it as the theological. The\nrupture of the mediaeval system is due to the decadence of theology:\nbut the direct agency in the rupture was the solvent force of the\nmetaphysical spirit. Neither the one nor the other then is likely to\nrecombine elements, the separation of which is principally due to\ntheir own conceptions. It is entirely to the spontaneous action of the\nPositive spirit that we owe those new though insufficient links of\nunion, whether industrial, artistic, or scientific, which, since the\nclose of the Middle Ages, have been leading us more and more decidedly\nto a reconstruction of the Western alliance. And now that Positivism\nhas assumed its matured and systematic form, its competence for the\nwork is even more unquestionable. It alone can effectually remove the\nnational antipathies which still exist. But it will do this without\nimpairing the natural qualities of any of them. Its object is by a wise\ncombination of these qualities, to develop under a new form the feeling\nof a common Occidentality.\n\n [Relation of Positivism\n to the mediaeval system,\n to which we owe the first\n attempt to separate\n spiritual from temporal\n power]\n\nBy extending the social movement to its proper limits, we thus exhibit\non a larger scale the same features that were noticed when France\nalone was being considered. Abroad or at home, every great social\nproblem that arises proves that the object of the second revolutionary\nphase is a reorganization of principles and of life. By this means\na body of public opinion will be formed of sufficient force to lead\ngradually to the growth of new political institutions. These will be\nadapted to the special requirements of each nation, under the general\nsuperintendence of the spiritual power, from whom our fundamental\nprinciples will have proceeded. The general spirit of these principles\nis essentially historical, whereas the tendency of the negative phase\nof the revolution was anti-historical. Without blind hatred of the\npast, men would never have had sufficient energy to abandon the old\nsystem. But henceforth the best evidence of having attained complete\nemancipation will be the rendering full justice to the past in all its\nphases. This is the most characteristic feature of that relative spirit\nwhich distinguishes Positivism. The surest sign of superiority, whether\nin persons or systems, is fair appreciation of opponents. And this\nmust always be the tendency of social science when rightly understood,\nsince its prevision of the future is avowedly based upon systematic\nexamination of the past. It is the only way in which the free and yet\nuniversal adoption of general principles of social reconstruction\ncan ever be possible. Such reconstruction, viewed by the light of\nSociology, will be regarded as a necessary link in the series of human\ndevelopment; and thus many confused and incoherent notions suggested by\nthe arbitrary beliefs hitherto prevalent will finally disappear. The\ngrowth of public opinion in this respect is aided by the increasing\nstrength of social feeling. Both combine to encourage the historical\nspirit which distinguishes the second period of the Revolution, as we\nsee indicated already in so many of the popular sympathies of the day.\n\nActing on this principle, Positivists will always acknowledge the\nclose relation between their own system and the memorable effort of\nmediaeval Catholicism. In offering for the acceptance of Humanity a\nnew organization of life, we would not dissociate it with all that\nhas gone before. On the contrary, it is our boast that we are but\nproposing for her maturity the accomplishment of the noble effort of\nher youth, an effort made when intellectual and social conditions\nprecluded the possibility of success. We are too full of the future to\nfear any serious charge of retrogression towards the past. It would be\nstrange were such a charge to proceed from those of our opponents whose\npolitical ideal is that amalgamation of temporal and spiritual power\nwhich was adopted by the theocratic or military systems of antiquity.\n\nThe separation of these powers in the Middle Ages is the greatest\nadvance ever yet made in the theory of social Order. It was imperfectly\neffected, because the time was not ripe for it; but enough was done\nto show the object of the separation, and some of its principal\nresults were partially arrived at. It originated the fundamental\ndoctrine of modern social life, the subordination of Politics to\nMorals; a doctrine which in spite of the most obstinate resistance\nhas survived the decline of the religion which first proclaimed it.\nWe see it now sanctioned by a republican government which has shaken\noff the fetters of that religion more completely than any other. A\nfurther result of the separation is the keen sense of personal honour,\ncombined with general fraternity, which distinguishes Western nations,\nespecially those who have been preserved from Protestantism. To the\nsame source is due the general feeling that men should be judged\nby their intellectual and moral worth, irrespectively of social\nposition, yet without upsetting that subordination of classes which\nis rendered necessary by the requirements of practical life. And this\nhas accustomed all classes to free discussion of moral and even of\npolitical questions; since every one feels it a right and a duty to\njudge actions and persons by the general principles which a common\nsystem of education has inculcated alike on all. I need not enlarge on\nthe value of the mediaeval church in organizing the political system\nof Western Europe, in which there was no other recognized principle\nof union. All these social results are usually attributed to the\nexcellence of the Christian doctrine; but history when fairly examined\nshows that the source from which they are principally derived is the\nCatholic principle of separating the two powers. For these effects\nare nowhere visible except in the countries where this separation\nhas been effected, although a similar code of morals and indeed a\nfaith identically the same have been received elsewhere. Besides,\nalthough sanctioned by the general tone of modern life, they have been\nneutralized to a considerable extent by the decline of the Catholic\norganization, and this especially in the countries where the greatest\nefforts have been made to restore the doctrine to its original purity\nand power.\n\nIn these respects Positivism has already appreciated Catholicism more\nfully than any of its own defenders, not even excepting De Maistre\nhimself, as indeed some of the more candid organs of the retrograde\nschool have allowed. But the merit of Catholicism does not merely\ndepend on the fact that it forms a most important link in the series\nof human development. What adds to the glory of its efforts is that,\nas history clearly proves, they were in advance of their time. The\npolitical failure of Catholicism resulted from the imperfection of\nits doctrines, and the resistance of the social medium in which it\nworked. It is true that Monotheism is far more compatible with the\nseparation of powers than Polytheism. But from the absolute character\nof every kind of theology, there was always a tendency in the mediaeval\nsystem to degenerate into mere theocracy. In fact, the proximate\ncause of its decline was the increased development of this tendency\nin the fourteenth century, and the resistance which it provoked\namong the kings, who stood forward to represent the general voice of\ncondemnation. Again, though separation of powers was less difficult\nin the defensive system of mediaeval warfare than in the aggressive\nsystem of antiquity, yet it is thoroughly repugnant to the military\nspirit in all its phases, because adverse to that concentration of\nauthority which is requisite in war. And thus it was never thoroughly\nrealized, except in the conceptions of a few leading men among both the\nspiritual and temporal class. Its brief success was principally caused\nby a temporary combination of circumstances. It was for the most part a\ncondition of very unstable equilibrium, oscillating between theocracy\nand empire.\n\n [But the mediaeval attempt\n was premature; and\n Positivism will renew and\n complete it]\n\nBut Positive civilization will accomplish what in the Middle Ages\ncould only be attempted. We are aided, not merely by the example of\nthe Middle Ages, but by the preparatory labours of the last five\ncenturies. New modes of thought have arisen, and practical life has\nassumed new phases; and all are alike tending towards the separation\nof powers. What in the Middle Ages was but dimly foreseen by a few\nardent and aspiring minds, becomes now an inevitable and obvious\nresult, instinctively felt and formally recognized by all. From the\nintellectual point of view it is nothing more than the distinction\nbetween theory and practice; a distinction which is already admitted\nmore or less formally throughout civilized Europe in subjects of less\nimportance; which therefore it would be unreasonable to abandon in the\nmost difficult of all arts and sciences. Viewed socially, it implies\nthe separation of education from action; or of morals from politics;\nand few would deny that the maintenance of this separation is one of\nthe greatest blessings of our progressive civilization. The distinction\nis of equal importance to morality and to liberty. It is the only way\nof bringing opinion and conduct under the control of principle; for\nthe most obvious application of a principle has little weight when\nit is merely an act of obedience to a special command. Taking the\nmore general question of bringing our political forces into harmony,\nit seems clear that theoretical and practical power are so totally\ndistinct in origin and operation, whether in relation to the heart, or\nintellect, or character, that the functions of counsel and of command\nought never to belong to the same organs. All attempts to unite them\nare at once retrograde and visionary, and if successful would lead to\nthe intolerable government of mediocrities equally unfit for either\nkind of power. But as I shall show in the following chapters this\nprinciple of separation will soon find increasing support among women\nand the working classes; the two elements of society in which we find\nthe greatest amount of good sense and right feeling.\n\nModern society is, in fact, already ripe for the adoption of this\nfundamental principle of polity; and the opposition to it proceeds\nalmost entirely from its connexion with the doctrines of the mediaeval\nchurch which have now become deservedly obsolete. But there will be an\nend of these revolutionary prejudices among all impartial observers as\nsoon as the principle is seen embodied in Positivism, the only doctrine\nwhich is wholly disconnected with Theology. All human conceptions,\nall social improvements originated under theological influence, as we\nsee proved clearly in many of the humblest details of life. But this\nhas never prevented Humanity from finally appropriating to herself\nthe results of the creeds which she has outgrown. And so it will be\nwith this great political principle; it has already become obsolete\nexcept for the Positive school, which has verified inductively all\nthe minor truths implied in it. The only direct attacks against it\ncome from the metaphysicians, whose ambitious aspirations for absolute\nauthority would be thwarted by it. It is they who attempt to fasten\non Positivism the stigma of theocracy: a strange and in most cases\ndisingenuous reproach, seeing that Positivists are distinguished from\ntheir opponents by discarding all beliefs which supersede the necessity\nfor discussion. The fact is that serious disturbances will soon be\ncaused by the pertinacious efforts of these adherents of pedantocracy\nto regulate by law what ought to be left to moral influences; and then\nthe public will become more alive to the necessity of the Positivist\ndoctrine of systematically separating political from moral government.\nThe latter should be understood to rely exclusively on the forces of\nconviction and persuasion; its influence on action being simply that\nof counsel; whereas the former employs direct compulsion, based upon\nsuperiority of physical force.\n\nWe now understand what is meant by the constructive character of\nthe second revolutionary phase. It implies a union of the social\naspirations of the Middle Ages with the wise political instincts of the\nConvention. In the interval of these two periods the more advanced\nnations were without any systematic organization, and were abandoned\nto the two-fold process of transition, which was decomposing the old\norder and preparing the new. Both these preliminary steps are now\nsufficiently accomplished. The desire for social regeneration has\nbecome too strong to be resisted, and a philosophical system capable\nof directing it has already arisen. We may, therefore, recommence on a\nbetter intellectual and social basis the great effort of Catholicism,\nto bring Western Europe to a social system of peaceful activity\nand intellectual culture, in which Thought and Action should be\nsubordinated to universal Love. Reconstruction will begin at the points\nwhere demolition began previously. The dissolution of the old organism\nbegan in the fourteenth century by the destruction of its international\ncharacter. Conversely, reorganization begins by satisfying the\nintellectual and mental wants common to the five Western nations.\n\n [The Ethical system of\n Positivism]\n\nAnd here, since the object of this character is to explain the social\nvalue of Positivism, I may show briefly that it leads necessarily to\nthe formation of a definite system of universal Morality; this being\nthe ultimate object of all Philosophy, and the starting-point of all\nPolity. Since it is by its moral code that every spiritual power must\nbe principally tested, this will be the best mode of judging of the\nrelative merits of Positivism and Catholicism.\n\n [Subjection of Self-love to\n Social love is the great\n ethical problem. The Social\n state of itself favours\n this result; but it may be\n hastened by organized and\n conscious effort]\n\nTo the Positivist the object of Morals is to make our sympathetic\ninstincts preponderate as far as possible over the selfish instincts;\nsocial feelings over personal feelings. This way of viewing the subject\nis peculiar to the new philosophy, for no other system has included\nthe more recent additions to the theory of human nature, of which\nCatholicism gave so imperfect a representation.\n\nIt is one of the first principles of Biology that organic life always\npreponderates over animal life. By this principle the Sociologist\nexplains the superior strength of the self-regarding instincts,\nsince these are all connected more or less closely with the instinct\nof self-preservation. But although there is no evading this fact,\nSociology shows that it is compatible with the existence of benevolent\naffections, affections which Catholicism had asserted to be altogether\nalien to our nature, and to be entirely dependent on superhuman Grace\nderived from a sphere beyond the reach of Law. The great problem,\nthen, is to raise social feeling by artificial effort to the position\nwhich, in the natural condition, is held by selfish feeling. The\nsolution is to be found in another biological principle, namely,\nthat functions and organs are developed by constant exercise, and\natrophied by prolonged inaction. Now the effect of the Social state is,\nthat while our sympathetic instincts are constantly stimulated, the\nselfish propensities are restricted; since, if free play were given\nto them, human intercourse would very shortly become impossible. Thus\nit compensates to some extent the natural weakness of the Sympathies\nthat they are capable of almost indefinite extension, while Self-love\nmeets inevitably with a more or less efficient check. Both these\ntendencies naturally increase with the progress of Humanity, and their\nincrease is the best measure of the degree of perfection that we have\nattained. Their growth, though spontaneous, may be materially hastened\nby organized intervention, both of individuals and of society, the\nobject being to increase all favourable influences and diminish the\nunfavourable. This is the object of the art of Morals. Like every other\nart, it is restricted within certain limits. But in this case the\nlimits are less narrow, because the phenomena, being more complex, are\nalso more modifiable.\n\nPositive morality differs therefore from that of theological as well\nas of metaphysical systems. Its primary principle is the preponderance\nof Social Sympathy. Full and free expansion of the benevolent emotions\nis made the first condition of individual and social well-being, since\nthese emotions are at once the sweetest to experience, and are the\nonly feelings which can find expression simultaneously in all. The\ndoctrine is as deep and pure as it is simple and true. It is eminently\ncharacteristic of a philosophy which, by virtue of its attribute of\nreality, subordinates all scientific conceptions to the social point\nof view, as the sole point from which they can be co-ordinated into\na whole. The intuitive methods of metaphysics could never advance\nwith any consistency beyond the sphere of the individual. Theology,\nespecially Christian theology, could only rise to social conceptions by\nan indirect process, forced upon it, not by its principles, but by its\npractical functions. Intrinsically, its spirit was altogether personal;\nthe highest object placed before each individual was the attainment\nof his own salvation, and all human affections were made subordinate\nto the love of God. It is true that the first training of our higher\nfeelings is due to theological systems; but their moral value depended\nmainly on the wisdom of the priesthood. They compensated the defects of\ntheir doctrine, and at that time no better doctrine was available, by\ntaking advantage of the antagonism which naturally presented itself\nbetween the interests of the imaginary and those of the real world.\nThe moral value of Positivism on the contrary, is inherent in its\ndoctrine, and can be largely developed, independently of any spiritual\ndiscipline, though not so far as to dispense with the necessity for\nsuch discipline. Thus, while Morality as a science is made far more\nconsistent by being placed in its true connexion with the rest of our\nknowledge, the sphere of natural morality is widened by bringing human\nlife, individually and collectively, under the direct and continuous\ninfluence of Social Feeling.\n\n [Intermediate between\n self-love and universal\n benevolence are the domestic\n affections: filial,\n fraternal, conjugal,\n paternal]\n\nI have stated that Positive morality is brought into a coherent and\nsystematic form by its principle of universal love. This principle must\nnow be examined first in its application to the separate aspects of the\nsubject, and subsequently as the means by which the various parts may\nbe co-ordinated.\n\nThere are three successive states of morality answering to the three\nprincipal stages of human life; the personal, the domestic, and the\nsocial stage. The succession represents the gradual training of the\nsympathetic principle; it is drawn out step by step by a series\nof affections which, as it diminishes in intensity, increases in\ndignity. This series forms our best resource in attempting as far\nas possible to reach the normal state; subordination of self-love\nto social feeling. These are the two extremes in the scale of human\naffections; but between them there is an intermediate degree, namely,\ndomestic attachment, and it is on this that the solution of the\ngreat moral problem depends. The love of his family leads Man out of\nhis original state of Self-love and enables him to attain finally a\nsufficient measure of Social love. Every attempt on the part of the\nmoral educator to call this last into immediate action, regardless\nof the intermediate stage, is to be condemned as utterly chimerical\nand profoundly injurious. Such attempts are regarded in the present\nday with far too favourable an eye. Far from being a sign of social\nprogress, they would, if successful, be an immense step backwards;\nsince the feeling which inspires them is one of perverted admiration\nfor antiquity.\n\nSince the importance of domestic life is so great as a transition from\nselfish to social feeling, a systematic view of its relations will be\nthe best mode of explaining the spirit of Positive morality, which is\nin every respect based upon the order found in nature.\n\nThe first germ of social feeling is seen in the affection of the\nchild for its parents. Filial love is the starting-point of our moral\neducation: from it springs the instinct of Continuity, and consequently\nof reverence for our ancestors. It is the first tie by which the new\nbeing feels himself bound to the whole past history of Man. Brotherly\nlove comes next, implanting the instinct of Solidarity, that is to say\nof union with our contemporaries; and thus we have already a sort of\noutline of social existence. With maturity new phases of feeling are\ndeveloped. Relationships are formed of an entirely voluntary nature;\nwhich have therefore a still more social character than the involuntary\nties of earlier years. This second stage in moral education begins\nwith conjugal affection, the most important of all, in which perfect\nfullness of devotion is secured by the reciprocity and indissolubility\nof the bond. It is the highest type of all sympathetic instincts,\nand has appropriated to itself in a special sense the name of Love.\nFrom this most perfect of unions proceeds the last in the series of\ndomestic sympathies, parental love. It completes the training by which\nNature prepares us for universal sympathy: for it teaches us to care\nfor our successors; and thus it binds us to the Future, as filial love\nhad bound us to the Past.\n\nI placed the voluntary class of domestic sympathies after the\ninvoluntary, because it was the natural order of individual\ndevelopment, and it thus bore out my statement of the necessity of\nfamily life as an intermediate stage between personal and social life.\nBut in treating more directly of the theory of the Family as the\nconstituent element of the body politic, the inverse order should be\nfollowed. In that case conjugal attachment would come first, as being\nthe feeling through which the family comes into existence as a new\nsocial unit, which in many cases consists simply of the original pair.\nDomestic sympathy, when once formed by marriage, is perpetuated first\nby parental then by filial affection; it may afterwards be developed\nby the tie of brotherhood, the only relation by which different\nfamilies can be brought into direct contact. The order followed here\nis that of decrease in intensity, and increase in extension. The\nfeeling of fraternity, which I place last, because it is usually least\npowerful, will be seen to be of primary importance when regarded as\nthe transition from domestic to social affections; it is, indeed, the\nnatural type to which all social sympathies conform. But there is yet\nanother intermediate relation, without which this brief exposition of\nthe theory of the family would be incomplete; I mean the relation of\nhousehold servitude, which may be called indifferently domestic or\nsocial. It is a relation which at the present time is not properly\nappreciated on account of our dislike to all subjection; and yet the\nword _domestic_ is enough to remind us that in every normal state\nof Humanity, it supplies what would otherwise be a want in household\nrelations. Its value lies in completing the education of the social\ninstinct, by a special apprenticeship in obedience and command, both\nbeing subordinated to the universal principle of mutual sympathy.\n\nThe object of the preceding remarks was to show the efficacy of the\nPositive method in moral questions by applying it to the most important\nof all moral theories, the theory of the Family. For more detailed\nproof, I must refer to my treatise on _Positive Polity_, to which\nthis work is introductory. I would call attention, however, to the\nbeneficial influence of Positivism on personal morality. Actions which\nhitherto had always been referred even by Catholic philosophers to\npersonal interests, are now brought under the great principle of Love\non which the whole Positive doctrine is based.\n\n [Personal virtues placed\n upon a social basis]\n\nFeelings are only to be developed by constant exercise; and exercise is\nmost necessary when the intrinsic energy of the feeling is least. It\nis therefore quite contrary to the true spirit of moral education to\ndegrade duty in questions of personal morality to a mere calculation\nof self-interest. Of course, in this elementary part of Ethics, it\nis easier to estimate the consequences of actions, and to show the\npersonal utility of the rules enjoined. But this method of procedure\ninevitably stimulates the self-regarding propensities, which are\nalready too preponderant, and the exercise of which ought as far as\npossible to be discouraged. Besides, it often results in practical\nfailure. To leave the decision of such questions to the judgment of the\nindividual, is to give a formal sanction to all the natural difference\nin men\u2019s inclinations. When the only motive urged is consideration for\npersonal consequences, every one feels himself to be the best judge\nof these, and modifies the rule at his pleasure. Positivism, guided\nby a truer estimate of the facts, entirely remodels this elementary\npart of Ethics. Its appeal is to social feeling, and not to personal,\nsince the actions in question are of a kind in which the individual is\nfar from being the only person interested. For example, such virtues\nas temperance and chastity are inculcated by the Positivist on other\ngrounds than those of their personal advantages. He will not of course\nbe blind to their individual value; but this is an aspect on which\nhe will not dwell too much, for fear of concentrating attention on\nself-interest. At all events, he will never make it the basis of his\nprecepts, but will invariably rest them upon their social value.\nThere are cases in which men are preserved by an unusually strong\nconstitution from the injurious effects of intemperance or libertinage;\nbut such men are bound to sobriety and continence as vigorously as the\nrest, because without these virtues they cannot perform their social\nduties rightly. Even in the commonest of personal virtues, cleanliness,\nthis alteration in the point of view may be made with advantage. A\nsimple sanitary regulation is thus ennobled by knowing that the object\nof it is to make each one of us more fit for the service of others.\nIn this way and in no other, can moral education assume its true\ncharacter at the very outset. We shall become habituated to the feeling\nof subordination to Humanity, even in our smallest actions. It is in\nthese that we should be trained to gain the mastery over the lower\npropensities; and the more so that, in these simple cases, it is less\ndifficult to appreciate their consequences.\n\nThe influence of Positivism on personal morality is in itself a proof\nof its superiority to other systems. Its superiority in domestic\nmorality we have already seen, and yet this was the best aspect of\nCatholicism, forming indeed the principal basis of its admirable moral\ncode. On social morality strictly so called, I need not dwell at\nlength. Here the value of the new philosophy will be more direct and\nobvious, the fact of its standing at the social point of view being\nthe very feature which distinguishes it from all other systems. In\ndefining the mutual duties arising from the various relations of life,\nor again in giving solidity and extension to the instinct of our common\nfraternity, neither theological nor metaphysical morality can bear\ncomparison with Positivism. Its precepts are adapted without difficulty\nto the special requirements of each case, because they are ever in\nharmony with the general laws of society and of human nature. But on\nthese obvious characteristics of Positivism I need not further enlarge,\nas I shall have other occasions for referring to them.\n\nAfter this brief exposition of Positive morality I must allude with\nequal brevity to the means by which it will be established and applied.\nThese are of two kinds. The first lay down the foundations of moral\ntraining for each individual: they furnish principles, and they\nregulate feelings. The second carry out the work begun, and ensure the\napplication of the principles inculcated to practical life. Both these\nfunctions are in the first instance performed spontaneously, under the\ninfluence of the doctrine and of the sympathies evoked by it. But for\ntheir adequate performance a spiritual power specially devoted to the\npurpose is necessary.\n\n [Moral education consists\n partly of scientific\n demonstration of ethical\n truth, but still more of\n culture of the highest\n sympathies]\n\nThe moral education of the Positivist is based both upon Reason and on\nFeeling, the latter having always the preponderance, in accordance\nwith the primary principle of the system.\n\nThe result of the rational basis is to bring moral precepts to the test\nof rigorous demonstration, and to secure them against all danger from\ndiscussion, by showing that they rest upon the laws of our individual\nand social nature. By knowing these laws, we are enabled to form a\njudgment of the influence of each affection, thought, action, or habit,\nbe that influence direct or indirect, special or general, in private\nlife or in public. Convictions based upon such knowledge will be as\ndeep as any that are formed in the present day from the strictest\nscientific evidence, with the excess of intensity due to their higher\nimportance and their close connexion with our noblest feelings. Nor\nwill such convictions be limited to those who are able to appreciate\nthe logical value of the arguments. We see constantly in other\ndepartments of Positive science that men will adopt notions upon trust,\nand carry them out with the same zeal and confidence, as if they were\nthoroughly acquainted with all the grounds for their belief. All that\nis necessary is, that they should feel satisfied that their confidence\nis well bestowed, the fact being, in spite of all that is said of the\nindependence of modern thought, that it is often given too readily.\nThe most willing assent is yielded every day to the rules which\nmathematicians, astronomers, physicists, chemists, or biologists, have\nlaid down in their respective arts, even in cases where the greatest\ninterests are at stake. And similar assent will certainly be accorded\nto moral rules when they, like the rest, shall be acknowledged to be\nsusceptible of scientific proof.\n\nBut while using the force of demonstration to an extent hitherto\nimpossible, Positivists will take care not to exaggerate its\nimportance. Moral education, even in its more systematic parts, should\nrest principally upon Feeling, as the mere statement of the great\nhuman problem indicates. The study of moral questions, intellectually\nspeaking, is most valuable; but the effect it leaves is not directly\nmoral, since the analysis will refer, not to our own actions, but to\nthose of others; for all scientific investigations, to be impartial\nand free from confusion, must be objective, not subjective. Now to\njudge others without immediate reference to self, is a process which\nmay possibly result in strong convictions, but so far from calling\nout right feelings, it will, if carried too far, interfere with or\ncheck their natural development. However, the new school of moralists\nis the less likely to err in this direction, that it would be totally\ninconsistent with that profound knowledge of human nature in which\nPositivism has already shown itself so far superior to Catholicism.\nNo one knows so well as the Positivist that the principal source\nof real morality lies in direct exercise of our social sympathies,\nwhether systematic or spontaneous. He will spare no efforts to develop\nthese sympathies from the earliest years by every method which sound\nphilosophy can indicate. It is in this that moral education, whether\nprivate or public, principally consists; and to it mental education\nis always to be held subordinate. I shall revert to these remarks in\nthe next chapter, when I come to the general question of educating the\nPeople.\n\n [Organization of Public\n Opinion]\n\nBut however efficient the training received in youth, it will not\nbe enough to regulate our conduct in after years, amidst all the\ndistracting influences of practical life, unless the same spiritual\npower which provides the education prolong its influence over our\nmaturity. Part of its task will be to recall individuals, classes,\nand even nations, when the case requires it, to principles which they\nhave forgotten or misinterpreted, and to instruct them in the means of\napplying them wisely. And here, even more than in the work of education\nstrictly so called, the appeal will be to Feeling rather than to\npure Reason. Its force will be derived from Public Opinion strongly\norganized. If the spiritual power awards its praise and blame justly,\npublic opinion, as I shall show in the next chapter, will lend it the\nmost irresistible support. This moral action of Humanity upon each of\nher members has always existed whenever there was any real community of\nprinciples and feelings. But its strength will be far greater under the\nPositive system. The reality of the doctrine and the social character\nof modern civilization give advantages to the new spiritual power which\nwere denied to Catholicism.\n\n [Commemoration of great men]\n\nAnd these advantages are brought forward very prominently by the\nPositive system of commemoration. Commemoration, when regularly\ninstituted, is a most valuable instrument in the hands of a spiritual\npower for continuing the work of moral education. It was the absolute\ncharacter of Catholicism, even more than the defective state of\nmediaeval society, that caused the failure of its noble aspirations\nto become the universal religion. In spite of all its efforts, its\nsystem of commemoration has always been restricted to very narrow\nlimits, both in time and space. Outside these limits, Catholicism has\nalways shown the same blindness and injustice that it now complains\nof receiving from its own opponents. Positivism, on the contrary,\ncan yield the full measure of praise to all times and all countries,\nwithout either weakness or inconsistency. Possessing the true theory\nof human development, every mode and phase of that development will be\ncelebrated. Thus every moral precept will be supported by the influence\nof posterity; and this in private life as well as in public, for the\nsystem of commemoration will be applied in the same spirit to the\nhumblest services as well as to the highest.\n\nWhile reserving special details for the treatise to which this work is\nintroductory, I may yet give one illustration of this important aspect\nof Positivism; an illustration which probably will be the first step in\nthe practical application of the system. I would propose to institute\nin Western Europe on any days that may be thought suitable, the\nyearly celebration of the three greatest of our predecessors, Caesar,\nSt. Paul and Charlemagne, who are respectively the highest types of\nGreco-Roman civilization, of Mediaeval Feudalism, and of Catholicism,\nwhich forms the link between the two periods. The services of these\nillustrious men have never yet been adequately recognized, for want of\na sound historical theory enabling us to explain the prominent part\nwhich they played in the development of our race. Even in St. Paul\u2019s\ncase the omission is noticeable. Positivism gives him a still higher\nplace than has been given him by Theology; for it looks upon him as\nhistorically the founder of the religion which bears the inappropriate\nname of Christianity. In the other two cases the influence of Positive\nprinciples is even more necessary. For Caesar has been almost equally\nmisjudged by theological and by metaphysical writers; and Catholicism\nhas done very little for the appreciation of Charlemagne. However,\nnotwithstanding the absence of any systematic appreciation of these\ngreat men, yet from the reverence with which they are generally\nregarded, we can hardly doubt that the celebration here proposed would\nmeet with ready acceptance throughout Western Europe.\n\nTo illustrate my meaning still further, I may observe that history\npresents cases where exactly the opposite course is called for, and\nwhich should be held up not for approbation but for infamy. Blame,\nit is true, should not be carried to the same extent as praise,\nbecause it stimulates the destructive instincts to a degree which is\nalways painful and sometimes injurious. Yet strong condemnation is\noccasionally desirable. It strengthens social feelings and principles,\nif only by giving more significance to our approval. Thus I would\nsuggest that after doing honour to the three great men who have done so\nmuch to promote the development of our race, there should be a solemn\nreprobation of the two principal opponents of progress, Julian and\nBonaparte; the latter being the more criminal of the two, the former\nthe more insensate. Their influence has been sufficiently extensive to\nallow of all the Western nations joining in this damnatory verdict.[6]\n\nThe principal function of the spiritual power is to direct the future\nof society by means of education; and, as a supplementary part of\neducation, to pronounce judgment upon the past in the mode here\nindicated. But there are functions of another kind, relating more\nimmediately to the present; and these too result naturally from its\nposition as an educating body. If the educators are men worthy of\ntheir position, it will give them an influence over the whole course\nof practical life, whether private or public. Of course it will merely\nbe the influence of counsel, and practical men will be free to accept\nor reject it; but its weight may be very considerable when given\nprudently, and when the authority from which it proceeds is recognized\nas competent. The questions on which its advice is most needed are the\nrelations between different classes. Its action will be coextensive\nwith the diffusion of Positive principles; for nations professing the\nsame faith, and sharing in the same education, will naturally accept\nthe same intellectual and moral directors. In the next chapter I shall\ntreat this subject more in detail. I merely mention it here as one\namong the list of functions belonging to the new spiritual power.\n\n [The political motto of\n Positivism: Order and\n Progress]\n\nIt will now not be difficult to show all the characteristics of\nPositivism are summed up in the motto, _Order and Progress_, a motto\nwhich has a philosophical as well as political bearing, and which I\nshall always feel glad to have put forward.\n\nPositivism is the only school which has given a definite significance\nto these two conceptions, whether regarded from their scientific\nor their social aspect. With regard to Progress, the assertion\nwill hardly be disputed, no definition of it but the Positive ever\nhaving yet been given. In the case of Order, it is less apparent;\nbut, as I have shown in the first chapter, it is no less profoundly\ntrue. All previous philosophies had regarded Order as stationary, a\nconception which rendered it wholly inapplicable to modern politics.\nBut Positivism, by rejecting the absolute, and yet not introducing\nthe arbitrary, represents Order in a totally new light, and adapts it\nto our progressive civilization. It places it on the firmest possible\nfoundation, that is, on the doctrine of the invariability of the\nlaws of nature, which defends it against all danger from subjective\nchimeras. The Positivist regards artificial Order in Social phenomena,\nas in all others, as resting necessarily upon the Order of nature, in\nother words, upon the whole series of natural laws.\n\n [Progress, the development\n of Order]\n\nBut Order has to be reconciled with Progress: and here Positivism is\nstill more obviously without a rival. Necessary as the reconciliation\nis, no other system has even attempted it. But the facility with\nwhich we are now enabled, by the encyclop\u00e6dic scale, to pass from the\nsimplest mathematical phenomena to the most complicated phenomena of\npolitical life, leads at once to a solution of the problem. Viewed\nscientifically, it is an instance of that necessary correlation of\nexistence and movement, which we find indicated in the inorganic\nworld, and which becomes still more distinct in Biology. Finding it\nin all the lower sciences, we are prepared for its appearance in a\nstill more definite shape in Sociology. Here its practical importance\nbecomes more obvious, though it had been implicitly involved before. In\nSociology the correlation assumes this form: Order is the condition of\nall Progress; Progress is always the object of Order. Or, to penetrate\nthe question still more deeply, Progress may be regarded simply as the\ndevelopment of Order; for the order of nature necessarily contains\nwithin itself the germ of all possible progress. The rational view of\nhuman affairs is to look on all their changes, not as new Creations,\nbut as new Evolutions. And we find this principle fully borne out in\nhistory. Every social innovation has its roots in the past; and the\nrudest phases of savage life show the primitive trace of all subsequent\nimprovement.\n\n [Analysis of Progress:\n material, physical,\n intellectual, and moral]\n\nProgress then is in its essence identical with Order, and may be looked\nupon as Order made manifest. Therefore, in explaining this double\nconception on which the Science and Art of society depend, we may at\npresent limit ourselves to the analysis of Progress. Thus simplified it\nis more easy to grasp, especially now that the novelty and importance\nof the question of Progress are attracting so much attention. For the\npublic is becoming instinctively alive to its real significance, as the\nbasis on which all sound moral and political teaching must henceforth\nrest.\n\nTaking, then, this point of view, we may say that the one great object\nof life, personal and social, is to become more perfect in every\nway; in our external condition first, but also, and more especially,\nin our own nature. The first kind of Progress we share in common\nwith the higher animals; all of which make some efforts to improve\ntheir material position. It is of course the least elevated stage of\nprogress; but being the easiest, it is the point from which we start\ntowards the higher stages. A nation that has made no efforts to improve\nitself materially, will take but little interest in moral or mental\nimprovement. This is the only ground on which enlightened men can feel\nmuch pleasure in the material progress of our own time. It stirs up\ninfluences that tend to the nobler kinds of Progress; influences which\nwould meet with even greater opposition than they do, were not the\ntemptations presented to the coarser natures by material prosperity\nso irresistible. Owing to the mental and moral anarchy in which we\nlive, systematic efforts to gain the higher degrees of Progress are\nas yet impossible; and this explains, though it does not justify, the\nexaggerated importance attributed nowadays to material improvements.\nBut the only kinds of improvement really characteristic of Humanity\nare those which concern our own nature; and even here we are not quite\nalone; for several of the higher animals show some slight tendencies to\nimprove themselves physically.\n\nProgress in the higher sense includes improvements of three sorts;\nthat is to say, it may be Physical, Intellectual, or Moral progress;\nthe difficulty of each class being in proportion to its value and the\nextent of its sphere. Physical progress, which again might be divided\non the same principle, seems under some of its aspects almost the same\nthing as material. But regarded as a whole it is far more important\nand far more difficult: its influence on the well-being of Man is also\nmuch greater. We gain more, for instance, by the smallest addition\nto length of life, or by any increased security for health, than by\nthe most elaborate improvements in our modes of travelling by land or\nwater, in which birds will probably always have a great advantage over\nus. However, as I said before, physical progress is not exclusively\nconfined to Man. Some of the animals, for instance, advance as far as\ncleanliness, which is the first step in the progressive scale.\n\nIntellectual and Moral progress, then, is the only kind really\ndistinctive of our race. Individual animals sometimes show it,\nbut never a whole species, except as a consequence of prolonged\nintervention on the part of Man. Between these two highest grades, as\nbetween the two lower, we shall find a difference of value, extent,\nand difficulty; always supposing the standard to be the manner in\nwhich they affect Man\u2019s well-being, collectively or individually. To\nstrengthen the intellectual powers, whether for art or for science,\nwhether it be the powers of observation or those of induction and\ndeduction, is, when circumstances allow of their being made available\nfor social purposes, of greater and more extensive importance, than\nall physical, and, _a fortiori_ than all material improvements. But\nwe know from the fundamental principle laid down in the first chapter\nof this work, that moral progress has even more to do with our\nwell-being than intellectual progress. The moral faculties are more\nmodifiable, although the effort required to modify them is greater.\nIf the benevolence or courage of the human race were increased, it\nwould bring more real happiness than any addition to our intellectual\npowers. Therefore to the question, What is the true object of human\nlife, whether looked at collectively or individually? the simplest\nand most precise answer would be, the perfection of our moral nature;\nsince it has a more immediate and certain influence on our well-being\nthan perfection of any other kind. All the other kinds are necessary,\nif for no other reason than to prepare the way for this; but from the\nvery fact of this connexion it may be regarded as their representative;\nsince it involves them all implicitly and stimulates them to increased\nactivity. Keeping then to the question of moral perfection, we find\ntwo qualities standing above the rest in practical importance, namely,\nSympathy and Energy. Both these qualities are included in the word\n_Heart_, which in all European languages has a different meaning for\nthe two sexes. Both will be developed by Positivism, more directly,\nmore continuously, and with greater result, than under any former\nsystem. The whole tendency of Positivism is to encourage sympathy;\nsince it subordinates every thought, desire, and action to social\nfeeling. Energy is also presupposed, and at the same time fostered, by\nthe system. For it removes a heavy weight of superstition, it reveals\nthe true dignity of man, and it supplies an unceasing motive for\nindividual and collective action. The very acceptance of Positivism\ndemands some vigour of character; it implies the braving of spiritual\nterrors, which were once enough to intimidate the firmest minds.\n\nProgress, then, may be regarded under four successive aspects:\nMaterial, Physical, Intellectual, and Moral. Each of these might again\nbe divided on the same principle, and we should then discover several\nintermediate phases. These cannot be investigated here; and I have\nonly to note that the philosophical principle of this analysis is\nprecisely the same as that on which I have based the Classification of\nthe Sciences. In both cases the order followed is that of increasing\ngenerality and complexity in the phenomena. The only difference is in\nthe mode in which the two arrangements are developed. For scientific\npurposes the lower portion of the scale has to be expanded into greater\ndetail; while from the social point of view attention is concentrated\non the higher parts. But whether it be the scale of the True or that of\nthe Good, the conclusion is the same in both. Both alike indicate the\nsupremacy of social considerations; both point to universal Love as the\nhighest ideal.\n\nI have now explained the principal purpose of Positive Philosophy,\nnamely, spiritual reorganization; and I have shown how that purpose\nis involved in the Positivist motto, Order and Progress. Positivism,\nthen, realizes the highest aspirations of mediaeval Catholicism, and\nat the same time fulfils the conditions, the absence of which caused\nthe failure of the Convention. It combines the opposite merits of the\nCatholic and the Revolutionary spirit, and by so doing supersedes\nthem both. Theology and Metaphysics may now disappear without danger,\nbecause the service which each of them rendered is now harmonized with\nthat of the other, and will be performed more perfectly. The principle\non which this result depends is the separation of spiritual from\ntemporal power. This, it will be remembered, had always been the chief\nsubject of contention between the two antagonistic parties.\n\n [Application of our\n principles to actual\n politics. All government\n must for the present be\n provisional]\n\nI have spoken of the moral and mental reorganization of Western\nEurope as characterizing the second phase of the Revolution. Let us\nnow see what are its relations with the present state of politics. Of\ncourse the development of Positivism will not be much affected by the\nretrograde tendencies of the day, whether theological or metaphysical.\nStill the general course of events will exercise an influence upon it,\nof which it is important to take account. So too, although the new\ndoctrine cannot at present do much to modify its surroundings, there\nare yet certain points in which action may be taken at once. In the\nfourth volume of this treatise the question of a transitional policy\nwill be carefully considered, with the view of facilitating the advent\nof the normal state which social science indicates in a more distant\nfuture. I cannot complete this chapter without some notice of this\nprovisional policy, which must be carried on until Positivism has made\nits way to general acceptance.\n\nThe principal feature of this policy is that it is temporary. To set\nup any permanent institution in a society which has no fixed opinions\nor principles of life, would be hopeless. Until the most important\nquestions are thoroughly settled, both in principle and practice, the\nonly measures of the least utility are those which facilitate the\nprocess of reconstruction. Measures adopted with a view to permanence\nmust end, as we have seen them end so often, in disappointment and\nfailure, however enthusiastically they may have been received at first.\n\nInevitable as this consequence of our revolutionary position is, it has\nnever been understood, except by the great leaders of the republican\nmovement in 1793. Of the various governments that we have had during\nthe last two generations, all, except the Convention, have fallen\ninto the vain delusion of attempting to found permanent institutions,\nwithout waiting for any intellectual or moral basis. And therefore\nit is that none but the Convention has left any deep traces in men\u2019s\nthoughts or feelings. All its principal measures, even those which\nconcerned the future more than the present, were avowedly provisional;\nand the consequence was that they harmonized well with the peculiar\ncircumstances of the time. The true philosopher will always look with\nrespectful admiration on these men, who not only had no rational theory\nto guide them, but were encumbered with false metaphysical notions;\nand who yet notwithstanding proved themselves the only real statesmen\nthat Western Europe can boast of since the time of Frederick the Great.\nIndeed the wisdom of their policy would be almost unaccountable, only\nthat the very circumstances which called for it so urgently, were to\nsome extent calculated to suggest it. The state of things was such\nas to make it impossible to settle the government on any permanent\nbasis. Again, amidst all the wild extravagance of the principles in\nvogue, the necessity of a strong government to resist foreign invasion\ncounteracted many of their worst effects. On the removal of this\nsalutary pressure, the Convention fell into the common error, though to\na less extent than the Constituent Assembly. It set up a constitution\nframed according to some abstract model, which was supposed to be\nfinal, but which did not last so long as the period originally proposed\nfor its own provisional labours. It is on this first period of its\ngovernment that its fame rests.\n\nThe plan originally proposed was that the government of the Convention\nshould last till the end of the war. If this plan could have been\ncarried out, it would probably have been extended still further, as\nthe impossibility of establishing any permanent system would have been\ngenerally recognized. The only avowed motive for making the government\nprovisional was of course the urgent necessity of national defence.\nBut beneath this temporary motive, which for the time superseded\nevery other consideration, there was another and a deeper motive for\nit, which could not have been understood without sounder historical\nprinciples than were at that time possible. That motive was the utterly\nnegative character of the metaphysical doctrines then accepted, and the\nconsequent absence of any intellectual or moral basis for political\nreconstruction. This of course was not recognized, but it was really\nthe principal reason why the establishment of any definite system of\ngovernment was delayed. Had the war been brought to an end, clearer\nviews of the subject would no doubt have been formed; indeed they had\nbeen formed already in the opposite camp, by men of the Neo-catholic\nschool, who were not absorbed by the urgent question of defending\nthe Republic. What blinded men to the truth was the fundamental\nyet inevitable error of supposing the critical doctrines of the\npreceding generation applicable to purposes of construction. They were\nundeceived at last by the utter anarchy which the triumph of these\nprinciples occasioned; and the next generation occupied itself with the\ncounter-revolutionary movement, in which similar attempts at finality\nwere made by the various reactionist parties. For these parties were\nquite as destitute as their opponents of any principles suited to the\ntask of reconstruction; and they had to fall back upon the old system\nas the only recognized basis on which public Order could be maintained.\n\n [Danger of attempting\n political reconstruction\n before spiritual]\n\nAnd in this respect the situation is still unchanged. It still retains\nits revolutionary character; and any immediate attempt to reorganize\npolitical administration would only be the signal for fresh attempts\nat reaction, attempts which now can have no other result than anarchy.\nIt is true that Positivism has just supplied us with a philosophical\nbasis for political reconstruction. But its principles are still so new\nand undeveloped, and besides are understood by so few, that they cannot\nexercise much influence at present on political life. Ultimately, and\nby slow degrees, they will mould the institutions of the future; but\nmeanwhile they must work their way freely into men\u2019s minds and hearts,\nand for this at least one generation will be necessary. Spiritual\norganization is the only point where an immediate beginning can be\nmade; difficult as it is, its possibility is at last as certain as\nits urgency. When sufficient progress has been made with it, it will\ncause a gradual regeneration of political institutions. But any attempt\nto modify these too rapidly would only result in fresh disturbances.\nSuch disturbances, it is true, will never be as dangerous as they\nwere formerly, because the anarchy of opinion is so profound that it\nis far more difficult for men to agree in any fixed principles of\naction. The absolute doctrines of the last century which inspired such\nintense conviction, can never regain their strength, because, when\nbrought to the crucial test of experience as well as of discussion,\ntheir uselessness for constructive purposes and their subversive\ntendency became evident to every one. They have been weakened, too, by\ntheological concessions which their supporters, in order to carry on\nthe government at all, were obliged to make. Consequently the policy\nwith which they are at present connected is one which oscillates\nbetween reaction and anarchy, or rather which is at once despotic and\ndestructive, from the necessity of controlling a society which has\nbecome almost as diverse to metaphysical as to theological rule. In\nthe utter absence, then, of any general convictions, the worst forms\nof political commotion are not to be feared, because it would be\nimpossible to rouse men\u2019s passions sufficiently. But unwise efforts\nto set up a permanent system of government would even now lead, in\ncertain cases, to lamentable disorder, and would at all events be\nutterly useless. Quiet at home depends now, like peace abroad, simply\non the absence of disturbing forces; a most insecure basis, since it\nis itself a symptom of the extent to which the disorganizing movement\nhas proceeded. This singular condition must necessarily continue until\nthe _interregnum_ which at present exists in the moral and intellectual\nregion comes to an end. As long as there is such an utter want of\nharmony in feeling as well as in opinion, there can be no real security\nagainst war or internal disorder. The existing equilibrium has arisen\nso spontaneously that it is no doubt less unstable than is generally\nsupposed. Still it is sufficiently precarious to excite continual\npanics, both at home and abroad, which are not only very irritating,\nbut often exercise a most injurious influence over our policy. Now\nattempts at immediate reconstruction of political institutions, instead\nof improving this state of things, make it very much worse, by giving\nfactitious life to the old doctrines, which, being thoroughly worn\nout, ought to be left to the natural process of decay. The inevitable\nresult of restoring them to official authority will be to deter the\npublic, and even the thinking portion of it, from that free exercise of\nthe mental powers by which, and by which only, we may hope to arrive\nwithout disturbance at fixed principles of action.\n\nThe cessation of war therefore justifies no change in republican\npolicy. As long as the spiritual interregnum lasts, it must retain its\nprovisional character. Indeed this character ought to be more strongly\nimpressed upon it than ever. For no one now has any real belief in the\norganic value of the received metaphysical doctrines. They would never\nhave been revived but for the need of having some sort of political\nformula to work with, in default of any real social convictions. But\nthe revival is only apparent, and it contrasts most strikingly with\nthe utter absence of systematic principles in most active minds. There\nis no real danger of repeating the error of the first revolutionists\nand of attempting to construct with negative doctrines. We have only\nto consider the vast development of industry, of esthetic culture, and\nof scientific study, to free ourselves from all anxiety on this head.\nSuch things are incompatible with any regard for the metaphysical\nteaching of ideologists or psychologists. Nor is there much to fear\nin the natural enthusiasm which is carrying us back to the first days\nof the Revolution. It will only revive the old republican spirit, and\nmake us forget the long period of retrogression and stagnation which\nhave elapsed since the first great outbreak; for this is the point\non which the attention of posterity will be finally concentrated.\nBut while satisfying these very legitimate feelings, the people will\nsoon find that the only aspect of this great crisis which we have to\nimitate is the wise insight of the Convention during the first part\nof its administration, in perceiving that its policy could only be\nprovisional, and that definite reconstruction must be reserved for\nbetter times. We may fairly hope that the next formal attempt to set\nup a constitution according to some abstract ideal, will convince the\nFrench nation, and ultimately the whole West, of the utter futility\nof such schemes. Besides, the free discussion which has now become\nhabitual to us, and the temper of the people, which is as sceptical\nof political entities as of Christian mysteries, would make any such\nattempts extremely difficult. Never was there a time so unfavourable\nto doctrines admitting of no real demonstration: demonstration being\nnow the only possible basis of permanent belief. Supposing then a new\nconstitution to be set on foot, and the usual time to be spent in the\nprocess of elaborating it, public opinion will very possibly discard it\nbefore it is completed; not allowing it even the short average duration\nof former constitutions. Any attempt to check free discussion on the\nsubject would defeat its own object; since free discussion is the\nnatural consequence of our intellectual and social position.\n\n [Politically what is\n wanted is Dictatorship,\n with liberty of speech and\n discussion]\n\nThe same conditions which require our policy to be provisional while\nthe spiritual interregnum lasts, point also to the mode in which\nthis provisional policy should be carried out. Had the revolutionary\ngovernment of the Convention continued till the end of the war, it\nwould probably have been prolonged up to the present time. But in\none most important respect a modification would have been necessary.\nDuring the struggle for independence what was wanted was a vigorous\ndictatorship, combining spiritual with temporal powers: a dictatorship\neven stronger than the old monarchy, and only distinguished from\ndespotism by its ardour in the cause of progress. Without complete\nconcentration of political power, the republic could never have been\nsaved. But with peace the necessity for such concentration was at an\nend. The only motive for still continuing the provisional system was\nthe absence of social convictions. But this would also be a motive for\ngiving perfect liberty of speech and discussion, which till then had\nbeen impossible or dangerous. For liberty was a necessary condition for\nelaborating and diffusing a new system of universal principles, as the\nonly sure basis for the future regeneration of society.\n\nThis hypothetical view of changes which might have taken place in the\nConventional government, may be applied to the existing condition of\naffairs. It is the policy best adapted for the republican government\nwhich is now arising in all the security of a settled peace, and yet\namidst the most entire anarchy of opinion. The successors of the\nConvention, men unworthy of their task, degraded the progressive\ndictatorship entrusted to them by the circumstances of the time into a\nretrograde tyranny. During the reign of Charles X, which was the last\nphase of the reaction, the central power was thoroughly undermined by\nthe legal opposition of the parliamentary or local power. The central\ngovernment still refused to recognize any limits to its authority; but\nthe growth of free thought made its claims to spiritual jurisdiction\nmore and more untenable, leaving it merely the temporal authority\nrequisite for public order. During the neutral period which followed\nthe counter-revolution, the dictatorship was not merely restricted to\nits proper functions, but was legally destroyed; that is the local\npower as represented by parliament took the place of the central power.\nAll pretentions to spiritual influence were abandoned by both; their\nthoughts being sufficiently occupied with the maintenance of material\norder. The intellectual anarchy of the time made this task difficult\nenough; but they aggravated the difficulty by unprincipled attempts\nto establish their government on the basis of pure self-interest,\nirrespectively of all moral considerations. The restoration of the\nrepublic and the progressive spirit aroused by it has no doubt given to\nboth legislative and executive a large increase of power: to an extent\nindeed which a few years back would have caused violent antipathy. But\nit would be a grievous error for either of them to attempt to imitate\nthe dictatorial style of the Conventional government. Unsuccessful in\nany true sense as the attempt would be, it might occasion very serious\ndisturbances, which like the obsolete metaphysical principles in which\nthey originate, would be equally dangerous to Order and to Progress.\n\nWe see, then, that in the total absence of any fixed principles on\nwhich men can unite, the policy required is one which shall be purely\nprovisional, and limited almost entirely to the maintenance of material\norder. If order be preserved, the situation is in all other respects\nmost favourable to the work of mental and moral regeneration which\nwill prepare the way for the society of the future. The establishment\nof a republic in France disproves the false claims set up by official\nwriters in behalf of constitutional government, as if it was the\nfinal issue of the Revolution. Meantime there is nothing irrevocable\nin the republic itself, except the moral principle involved in it,\nthe absolute and permanent preponderance of Social Feeling; in other\nwords, the concentration of all the powers of Man upon the common\nwelfare. This is the only maxim of the day which we can accept as\nfinal. It needs no formal sanction, because it is merely the expression\nof feelings generally avowed, all prejudices against it having been\nentirely swept away. But with the doctrines and the institutions\nresulting from them, through which this dominion of social feeling is\nto become an organized reality, the republic has no direct connexion;\nit would be compatible with many different solutions of the problem.\nPolitically, the only irrevocable point is the abolition of monarchy,\nwhich for a long time has been in France and to a less extent\nthroughout the West, the symbol of retrogression.\n\nThat spirit of devotion to the public welfare, which is the noblest\nfeature of republicanism, is strongly opposed to any immediate attempts\nat political finality, as being incompatible with conscientious\nendeavours to find a real solution of social problems. For before the\npractical solution can be hoped for, a systematic basis for it must\nexist: and this we can hardly expect to find in the remnants left to\nus of the old creeds. All that the true philosopher desires is simply\nthat the question of moral and intellectual reorganization shall be\nleft to the unrestricted efforts of thinkers of whatever school. And in\nadvocating this cause, he will plead the interests of the republic, for\nthe safety of which it is of the utmost importance that no special set\nof principles should be placed under official patronage. Republicanism\nthen, will do far more to protect free thought, and resist political\nencroachment, than was done during the Orleanist government by the\nretrograde instincts of Catholicism. Catholic resistance to political\nreconstructions was strong, but blind: its place will now be more\nthan supplied by wise indifference on the part of the public, which\nhas learnt by experience the inevitable failure of these incoherent\nattempts to realize metaphysical Utopias. The only danger of the\nposition is lest it divert the public, even the more reflective portion\nof it, from deep and continuous thought, to practical experiments based\non superficial and hasty considerations. It must be owned that the\ntemper of mind which now prevails would have been most unfavourable for\nthe original elaboration of Positivism. That work, however, had already\nbeen accomplished under the Constitutional system; which, while not so\nrestrictive as the preceding government, was yet sufficiently so to\nconcentrate our intellectual powers, which of themselves would have\nbeen too feeble, upon the task. The original conception had indeed been\nformed during the preceding reign; but its development and diffusion\ntook place under the parliamentary system. Positivism now offers\nitself for practical application to the question of social progress,\nwhich has become again the prominent question, and will ever remain\nso. Unfavourable as the present political temper would have been to\nthe rise of Positivism, it is not at all so to its diffusion; always\nsupposing its teachers to be men of sufficient dignity to avoid the\nsnare of political ambition into which thinkers are now so apt to fall.\nBy explaining, as it alone can explain, the futility and danger of the\nvarious Utopian schemes which are now competing with each other for\nthe reorganization of society, Positivism will soon be able to divert\npublic attention from these political chimeras, to the question of a\ntotal reformation of principles and of life.\n\n [Such a dictatorship would\n be a step towards the\n separation of spiritual and\n temporal power]\n\nRepublicanism, then, will offer no obstacle to the diffusion of\nPositivist principles. Indeed, there is one point of view from which\nwe may regard it as the commencement of the normal state. It will\ngradually lead to the recognition of the fundamental principle that\nspiritual power must be wholly independent of every kind of temporal\npower, whether central or local. It is not merely that statesmen will\nsoon have to confess their inability to decide on the merits of a\ndoctrine which supposes an amount of deep scientific knowledge from\nwhich they must necessarily be precluded. Besides this, the disturbance\ncaused by the ambition of metaphysical schemers, who are incapable of\nunderstanding the times in which they live, will induce the public to\nwithdraw their confidence from such men, and give it only to those\nwho are content to abandon all political prospects, and to devote\nthemselves to their proper function as philosophers. Thus Republicanism\nis, on the whole, favourable to this great principle of Positivism,\nthe separation of temporal from spiritual power, notwithstanding the\ntemptations offered to men who wish to carry their theories into\nimmediate application. The principle seems, no doubt, in opposition\nto all our revolutionary prejudices. But the public, as well as the\ngovernment, will be brought to it by experience. They will find it the\nonly means of saving society from the consequences of metaphysical\nUtopias, by which Order and Progress are alike threatened. Thinkers\ntoo, those of them at least who are sincere, will cease to regard\nit with such blind antipathy, when they see that while it condemns\ntheir aspirations to political influence, it opens out to them a\nnoble and most extensive sphere of moral influence. Independently of\nsocial considerations, it is the only way in which the philosopher can\nmaintain the dignity to which his position entitles him, and which is\nat present so often compromised by the very success of his political\nambition.\n\n [The motto of 1830, _Liberty\n and Public Order_]\n\nThe political attitude which ought for the present to be assumed is so\nclearly indicated by all the circumstances of the time, that practical\ninstinct has in this respect anticipated theory. The right view is\nwell expressed in the motto, _Liberty and Public Order_, which was\nadopted spontaneously by the middle class at the commencement of the\nneutral period in 1830. It is not known who was the author of it; but\nit is certainly far too progressive to be considered as representing\nthe feelings of the monarchy. It is not of course the expression of\nany systematic convictions; but no metaphysical school could have\npointed out so clearly the two principal conditions required by the\nsituation. Positivism, while accepting it as an inspiration of popular\nwisdom, makes it more complete by adding two points which should have\nbeen contained in it at first, only that they were too much opposed\nto existing prejudices to have been sanctioned by public opinion.\nBoth parts of the motto require some expansion. Liberty ought to\ninclude perfect freedom of teaching; Public Order should involve the\npreponderance of the central power over the local. I subjoin a few\nbrief remarks on these two points, which will be considered more fully\nin the fourth volume of this treatise.\n\n [Liberty should be extended\n to Education]\n\nPositivism is now the only consistent advocate of free speech and\nfree inquiry. Schools of opinion which do not rest on demonstration,\nand would consequently be shaken by any argumentative attacks, can\nnever be sincere in their wish for Liberty, in the extended sense here\ngiven to it. Liberty of writing we have now had for a long time. But\nbesides this we want liberty of speech; and also liberty of teaching;\nthat is to say, the abandonment by the State of all its educational\nmonopolies. Freedom of teaching, of which Positivists are the only\ngenuine supporters, has become a condition of the first importance:\nand this not merely as a provisional measure, but as an indication of\nthe normal state of things. In the first place, it is the only means\nby which any doctrine that has the power of fixing and harmonizing\nmen\u2019s convictions can become generally known. To legalize any system\nof education would imply that such a doctrine had been already found;\nit most assuredly is not the way to find it. But again, freedom of\nteaching is a step towards the normal state; it amounts to an admission\nthat the problem of education is one which temporal authorities are\nincompetent to solve. Positivists would be the last to deny that\neducation ought to be regularly organized. Only they assert, first,\nthat as long as the spiritual interregnum lasts, no organization is\npossible; and secondly, that whenever the acceptance of a new synthesis\nmakes it possible, it will be effected by the spiritual power to which\nthat synthesis gives rise. In the meantime no general system of State\neducation should be attempted. It will be well, however, to continue\nState assistance to those branches of instruction which are the most\nliable to be neglected by private enterprise, especially reading and\nwriting. Moreover, there are certain institutions either established\nor revived by the Convention for higher training in special subjects;\nthese ought to be carefully preserved, and brought up to the present\nstate of our knowledge, for they contain the germs of principles\nwhich will be most valuable when the problem of reorganizing general\neducation comes before us. But all the institutions abolished by the\nConvention ought now to be finally suppressed. Even the Academies\nshould form no exception to this rule, for the harm which they have\ndone, both intellectually and morally, since their reinstalment, has\nfully justified the wisdom of the men who decided on their abolition.\nGovernment should no doubt exercise constant vigilance over all private\neducational institutions; but this should have nothing to do with their\ndoctrines, but with their morality, a point scandalously neglected\nin the present state of the law. These should be the limits of state\ninterference in education. With these exceptions it should be left to\nthe unrestricted efforts of private associations, so as to give every\nopportunity for a definitive educational system to establish itself.\nFor to pretend that any satisfactory system exists at present would\nonly be a hypocritical subterfuge on the part of the authorities.\nThe most important step towards freedom of education would be the\nsuppression of all grants to theological or metaphysical societies,\nleaving each man free to support the religion and the system of\ninstruction which he prefers. This, however, should be carried out in\na just and liberal spirit worthy of the cause, and without the least\ntaint of personal dislike or party feeling. Full indemnity should be\ngiven to members of Churches or Universities, upon whom these changes\nwould come unexpectedly. By acting in this spirit it will be far less\ndifficult to carry out measures which are obviously indicated by the\nposition in which we stand. As there is now no doctrine which commands\ngeneral assent, it would be an act of retrogression to give legal\nsanction to any of the old creeds, whatever their former claim to\nspiritual ascendancy. It is quite in accordance with the republican\nspirit to refuse such sanction, notwithstanding the tendency that there\nis to allow ideologists to succeed to the Academic offices held under\nthe constitutional system by psychologists.\n\n [Order demands\n centralization]\n\nBut Positivism will have as beneficial an influence on Public\nOrder as on Liberty. It holds, in exact opposition to revolutionary\nprejudices, that the central power should preponderate over the local.\nThe constitutionalist principle of separating the legislative from\nthe executive is only an empirical imitation of the larger principle\nof separating temporal and spiritual power, which was adopted in the\nMiddle Ages. There will always be a contest for political supremacy\nbetween the central and local authorities; and it is an error into\nwhich, from various causes, we have fallen recently, to attempt\nto balance them against each other. The whole tendency of French\nhistory has been to let the central power preponderate, until it\ndegenerated and became retrograde towards the end of the seventeenth\ncentury. Our present preference for the local power is therefore an\nhistorical anomaly, which is sure to cease as soon as the fear of\nreaction has passed away. And as Republicanism secures us against\nany dangers of this kind, our political sympathies will soon resume\ntheir old course. The advantages of the central power are, first,\nthat it is more directly responsible than the other; and, secondly,\nthat it is more practical and less likely to set up any claims to\nspiritual influence. This last feature is of the highest importance,\nand is likely to become every day more marked. Whereas the local or\nlegislative power, not having its functions clearly defined, is very\napt to interfere in theoretical questions without being in any sense\nqualified for doing so. Its preponderance would, then, in most cases be\ninjurious to intellectual freedom, which, as it feels instinctively,\nwill ultimately result in the rise of a spiritual authority destined\nto supersede its own. On the strength of these tendencies, which\nhave never before been explained, Positivists have little hesitation\nin siding in almost all cases with the central as against the local\npower. Philosophers, whom no one can accuse of reactionist or servile\nviews, who have given up all political prospects, and who are devoting\nthemselves wholly to the work of spiritual reorganization, need not\nbe afraid to take this course; and they ought to exert themselves\nvigorously in making the central power preponderant, limiting the\nfunctions of the local power to what is strictly indispensable. And,\nnotwithstanding all appearances to the contrary, republicanism will\nhelp to modify the revolutionary feeling on this point. It removes\nthe distrust of authority caused naturally by the retrograde spirit\nof the old monarchy; and it makes it easier to repress any further\ntendencies of the same kind, without necessitating an entire change\nin the character of our policy for the sake of providing against a\ncontingency, of which there is now so little fear. As soon as the\ncentral power has given sufficient proof of its progressive intentions,\nthere will be no unwillingness on the part of the French public to\nrestrict the powers of the legislative body, whether by reducing it\nto one-third of its present numbers, which are so far too large, or\neven by limiting its functions to the annual vote of the supplies.\nDuring the last phase of the counter-revolution, and the long period\nof parliamentary government which followed, a state of feeling has\narisen on this subject, which is quite exceptional, and which sound\nphilosophical teaching, and wise action on the part of government,\nwill easily modify. It is inconsistent with the whole course of French\nhistory; and only leads us into the mistake of imitating the English\nconstitution, which is adapted to no other country. The very extension\nwhich has just been given to the representative system will bring\nit into discredit, by showing it to be as futile and subversive in\npractice as philosophy had represented it to be in theory.\n\n [Intimate connexion of\n Liberty with Order]\n\nSuch, then, is the way in which Positivism would interpret these two\nprimary conditions of our present policy, Liberty and Public Order.\nBut besides this, it explains and confirms the connexion which exists\nbetween them. It teaches in the first place, that true liberty is\nimpossible at present without the vigorous control of a central power,\nprogressive in the true sense of the word, wise enough to abdicate all\nspiritual influence, and keep to its own practical functions. Such a\npower is needed in order to check the despotic spirit of the various\ndoctrines now in vogue. As all of them are more or less inconsistent\nwith the principle of separation of powers, they would all be willing\nto employ forcible means of securing uniformity of opinion. Besides,\nthe anarchy which is caused by our spiritual interregnum, might, but\nfor a strong government, very probably interfere with the philosophical\nfreedom which we now enjoy. Conversely, unless Liberty in the sense\nhere spoken of be granted, it will be impossible for the central\npower to maintain itself in the position which public order requires.\nThe obstacle to that position at present is the fear of reaction;\nand a scrupulous regard for freedom is the only means of removing\nthese feelings which, though perhaps unfounded, are but too natural.\nAll fears will be allayed at once when liberty of instruction and\nassociation becomes part of the law of the land. There will then be no\nhope, and indeed no wish, on the part of government to regulate our\nsocial institutions in conformity with any particular doctrine.\n\nThe object of this chapter has been to show the social value of\nPositivism. We have found that not merely does it throw light upon\nour Future policy, but that it also teaches us how to act upon the\nPresent; and these indications have in both cases been based upon\ncareful examination of the Past, in accordance with the fundamental\nlaws of human development. It is the only system capable of handling\nthe problem now proposed by the more advanced portion of our race to\nall who would claim to guide them. That problem is this; to reorganize\nhuman life, irrespectively of god or king; recognizing the obligation\nof no motive, whether public or private, other than Social Feeling,\naided in due measure by the positive science and practical energy of\nMan.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE ACTION OF POSITIVISM UPON THE WORKING CLASSES\n\n\n [Positivism will not for the\n present recommend itself to\n the governing classes, so\n much as to the People]\n\nPositivism, whether looked at as a philosophical system or as an\ninstrument of social renovation, cannot count upon much support\nfrom any of the classes, whether in Church or State, by whom the\ngovernment of mankind has hitherto been conducted. There will be\nisolated exceptions of great value, and these will soon become more\nnumerous: but the prejudices and passions of these classes will present\nserious obstacles to the work of moral and mental reorganization which\nconstitutes the second phase of the great Western revolution. Their\nfaulty education and their repugnance to system prejudice them against\na philosophy which subordinates specialities to general principles.\nTheir aristocratic instincts make it very difficult for them to\nrecognize the supremacy of Social Feeling; that doctrine which lies\nat the root of social regeneration, as conceived by Positivism. That\nno support can be expected from the classes who were in the ascendant\nbefore the Revolution, is of course obvious; and we shall probably meet\nwith opposition, quite as real though more carefully concealed, from\nthe middle classes, to whom that revolution transferred the authority\nand social influence which they had long been coveting. Their thoughts\nare entirely engrossed with the acquisition of power; and they concern\nthemselves but little with the mode in which it is used, or the objects\nto which it is directed. They were quite convinced that the Revolution\nhad found a satisfactory issue in the parliamentary system instituted\nduring the recent period of political oscillation. They will long\ncontinue to regret that stationary period, because it was peculiarly\nfavourable to their restless ambition. A movement tending to the\ncomplete regeneration of society is almost as much dreaded now by the\nmiddle classes as it was formerly by the higher. And both would at all\nevents agree in prolonging the system of theological hypocrisy, as far\nas republican institutions admitted of it. That policy is now the only\nmeans by which retrogression is still possible. Ignoble as it is, there\nare two motives for adopting it; it secures respect and submission on\nthe part of the masses, and it imposes no unpleasant duties on their\ngovernors. All their critical and metaphysical prejudices indispose\nthem to terminate the state of spiritual anarchy which is the greatest\nobstacle to social regeneration: while at the same time their ambition\ndreads the establishment of a new moral authority, the restrictive\ninfluence of which would of course press most heavily upon themselves.\nIn the eighteenth century, men of rank, and even kings, accepted the\npurely negative philosophy that was then in vogue; it removed many\nobstacles, it was an easy path to reputation, and it imposed no great\nsacrifice. But we can hardly hope from this precedent that the wealthy\nand literary classes of our own time will be equally willing to accept\nPositive philosophy; the avowed purpose of which is to discipline our\nintellectual powers, in order to reorganize our modes of life.\n\nThe avowal of such a purpose is quite sufficient to prevent Positivism\nfrom gaining the sympathies of any one of the governing classes. The\nclasses to which it must appeal are those who have been left untrained\nin the present worthless methods of instruction by words and entities,\nwho are animated with strong social instincts, and who consequently\nhave the largest stock of good sense and good feeling. In a word it is\namong the Working Classes that the new philosophers will find their\nmost energetic allies. They are the two extreme terms in the social\nseries as finally constituted; and it is only through their combined\naction that social regeneration can become a practical possibility.\nNotwithstanding their difference of position, a difference which\nindeed is more apparent than real, there are strong affinities between\nthem, both morally and intellectually. Both have the same sense of the\nreal, the same preference for the useful, and the same tendency to\nsubordinate special points to general principles. Morally they resemble\neach other in generosity of feeling, in wise unconcern for material\nprospects, and in indifference to worldly grandeur. This at least will\nbe the case as soon as philosophers in the true sense of that word\nhave mixed sufficiently with the nobler members of the working classes\nto raise their own character to its proper level. When the sympathies\nwhich unite them upon these essential points have had time to show\nthemselves, it will be felt that the philosopher is, under certain\naspects, a member of the working class fully trained; while the working\nman is in many respects a philosopher without the training. Both too\nwill look with similar feelings upon the intermediate or capitalist\nclass. As that class is necessarily the possessor of material power,\nthe pecuniary existence of both will as a rule be independent upon it.\n\n [The working man who accepts\n his position is favourably\n situated for the reception\n of comprehensive principles\n and generous sympathies]\n\nThese affinities follow as a natural result from their respective\nposition and functions. The reason of their not having been recognized\nmore distinctly is, that at present we have nothing that can be called\na philosophic class, or at least it is only represented by a few\nisolated types. Workmen worthy of their position are happily far less\nrare; but hitherto it is only in France, or rather in Paris, that\nthey have shown themselves in their true light, as men emancipated\nfrom chimerical beliefs, and careless of the empty prestige of social\nposition. It is, then, only in Paris that the truth of the preceding\nremarks can be fully verified.\n\nThe occupations of working men are evidently far more conducive to\nphilosophical views than those of the middle classes; since they are\nnot so absorbing, as to prevent continuous thought, even during the\nhours of labour. And besides having more time for thinking, they have\na moral advantage in the absence of any responsibility when their work\nis over. The workman is preserved by his position from the schemes of\naggrandisement, which are constantly harassing the capitalist. Their\ndifference in this respect causes a corresponding difference in their\nmodes of thought; the one cares more for general principles, the other\nmore for details. To a sensible workman, the system of dispersive\nspeciality now so much in vogue shows itself in its true light. He sees\nit, that is, to be brutalizing, because it would condemn his intellect\nto the most paltry mode of culture, so much so that it will never\nbe accepted in France, in spite of the irrational endeavours of our\nAnglo-maniac economists. To the capitalist, on the contrary, and even\nto the man of science, that system, however rigidly and consistently\ncarried out, will seem far less degrading; or rather it will be looked\nupon as most desirable, unless his education has been such as to\ncounteract these tendencies, and to give him the desire and the ability\nfor abstract and general thought.\n\nMorally, the contrast between the position of the workman and the\ncapitalist is even more striking. Proud as most men are of worldly\nsuccess, the degree of moral or mental excellence implied in the\nacquisition of wealth or power, even when the means used have been\nstrictly legitimate, is hardly such as to justify that pride. Looking\nat intrinsic qualities rather than at visible results, it is obvious\nthat practical success, whether in industry or in war, depends far\nmore on character than on intellect or affection. The principal\ncondition for it is the combination of a certain amount of energy\nwith great caution, and a fair share of perseverance. When a man has\nthese qualities, mediocrity of intellect and moral deficiency will\nnot prevent his taking advantage of favourable chances; chance being\nusually a very important element in worldly success. Indeed it would\nhardly be an exaggeration to say that poverty of thought and feeling\nhas often something to do with forming and maintaining the disposition\nrequisite for the purpose. Vigorous exertion of the active powers\nis more frequently induced by the personal propensities of avarice,\nambition, or vanity, than by the higher instincts. Superiority of\nposition, when legitimately obtained, deserves respect; but the\nphilosopher, like the religionist, and with still better grounds,\nrefuses to regard it as a proof of moral superiority, a conclusion\nwhich would be wholly at variance with the true theory of human nature.\n\nThe life of the workman, on the other hand, is far more favourable to\nthe development of the nobler instincts. In practical qualities he is\nusually not wanting, except in caution, a deficiency which makes his\nenergy and perseverance less useful to himself, though fully available\nfor society. But it is in the exercise of the higher feelings that\nthe moral superiority of the working class is most observable. When\nour habits and opinions have been brought under the influence of\nsystematic principles, the true character of this class, which forms\nthe basis of modern society, will become more distinct; and we shall\nsee that home affections are naturally stronger with them than with\nthe middle classes, who are too much engrossed with personal interests\nfor the full enjoyment of domestic ties. Still more evident is their\nsuperiority in social feelings strictly so called, for these with them\nare called into daily exercise from earliest childhood. Here it is that\nwe find the highest and most genuine types of friendship, and this\neven amongst those who are placed in a dependent position, aggravated\noften by the aristocratic prejudices of those above them, and whom we\nmight imagine on that account condemned to a lower moral standard. We\nfind sincere and simple respect for superiors, untainted by servility,\nnot vitiated by the pride of learning, not disturbed by the jealousies\nof competition. Their personal experience of the miseries of life is\na constant stimulus to the nobler sympathies. In no class is there\nso strong an incentive to social feeling, at least to the feeling of\nSolidarity between contemporaries; for all are conscious of the support\nthat they derive from union, support which is not at all incompatible\nwith strong individuality of character. The sense of Continuity with\nthe past has not, it is true, been sufficiently developed; but this\nis a want which can only be supplied by systematic culture. It will\nhardly be disputed that there are more remarkable instances of prompt\nand unostentatious self-sacrifice at the call of a great public\nnecessity in this class than in any other. Note, too, that in the\nutter absence of any systematic education, all these moral excellences\nmust be looked upon as inherent in the class. It is impossible to\nattribute them to theological influence, now that they have so entirely\nshaken off the old faith. The type I have described would be generally\nconsidered imaginary; and at present it is only in Paris that it can\nbe fully realized. But the fact of its existence in the centre of\nWestern Europe is enough for all rational observers. A type so fully\nin accordance with what we know of human nature cannot fail ultimately\nto spread everywhere, especially when these spontaneous tendencies are\nplaced under the systematic guidance of Positivism.\n\n [This the Convention felt;\n but they encouraged the\n People to seek political\n supremacy, for which they\n are not fit]\n\nThese remarks will prepare us to appreciate the wise and generous\ninstincts of the Convention in looking to the Proletariate as the\nmainspring of its policy; and this is not merely on account of the\nincidental danger of foreign invasion, but in dealing with the larger\nquestion of social regeneration, which it pursued so ardently, though\nin such ignorance of its true principles. Owing, however, to the want\nof a satisfactory system, and the disorder produced by the metaphysical\ntheories of the time, the spirit in which this alliance with the\npeople was framed was incompatible with the real object in view. It\nwas considered that government ought as a rule to be in the hands of\nthe people. Now under the special circumstances of the time popular\ngovernment was undoubtedly very useful. The existence of the republic\ndepended almost entirely upon the proletariate, the only class that\nstood unshaken and true to its principles. But in the absolute spirit\nof the received political theories, this state of things was regarded\nas normal, a view which is incompatible with the most important\nconditions of modern society. It is of course always right for the\npeople to assist government in carrying out the law, even to the extent\nof physical force, should the case require it. Interference of this\nsubordinate kind, whether in foreign or internal questions, so far from\nleading to anarchy, is obviously a guarantee for order which ought to\nexist in every properly constituted society. Indeed in this respect our\nhabits in France are still very defective; men are too often content to\nremain mere lookers on, while the police to whom they owe their daily\nprotection is doing its duty. But for the people to take a direct part\nin government, and to have the final decision of political measures,\nis a state of things which in modern society is only adapted to times\nof revolution. To recognize it as final would lead at once to anarchy,\nwere it not so utterly impossible to realize.\n\n [It is only in exceptional\n cases that the People can be\n really \u2018sovereign\u2019]\n\nPositivism rejects the metaphysical doctrine of the Sovereignty of the\npeople. But it appropriates all that is really sound in the doctrine,\nand this with reference not merely to exceptional cases but to the\nnormal state; while at the same time it guards against the danger\ninvolved in its application as an absolute truth. In the hands of the\nrevolutionary party the doctrine is generally used to justify the right\nof insurrection. Now in Positive Polity, this right is looked upon\nas an ultimate resource, with which no society should allow itself\nto dispense. Absolute submission, which is too strongly inculcated\nby modern Catholicism, would expose us to the danger of tyranny.\nInsurrection may be regarded, scientifically, as a sort of reparative\ncrisis, of which societies stand in more need than individuals in\naccordance with the well-known biological law, that the higher and\nthe more complicated the organism, the more frequent and also the\nmore dangerous is the pathological state. Therefore, the fear that\nPositivism, when generally accepted, will encourage passive obedience,\nis perfectly groundless; although it is certainly not favourable to the\npure revolutionary spirit, which would fain take the disease for the\nnormal type of health. Its whole character is so essentially relative,\nthat it finds no difficulty in accepting subordination as the rule,\nand yet allowing for exceptional cases of revolt; a course by which\ngood taste and human dignity are alike satisfied. Positivism looks upon\ninsurrection as a dangerous remedy that should be reserved for extreme\ncases; but it would never scruple to sanction and even to encourage\nit when it is really indispensable. This is quite compatible with\nrefusing, as a rule, to submit the decision of political questions and\nthe choice of rulers to judges who are obviously incompetent; and who,\nunder the influence of Positivism, will of their own free will abdicate\nrights which are subversive of order.\n\n [The truth involved in the\n expression is that the\n well-being of the people\n should be the one great\n object of government]\n\nThe metaphysical doctrine of the Sovereignty of the people, contains,\nhowever, a truth of permanent value, though in a very confused form.\nThis truth Positivism separates very distinctly from its dangerous\nalloy, yet without weakening, on the contrary, with the effect of\nenforcing, its social import. There are two distinct conceptions in\nthis doctrine, which have hitherto been confounded; a political\nconception applicable to certain special cases; a moral conception\napplicable to all.\n\nIn the first place the name of the whole body politic ought to be\ninvoked in the announcement of any special measure, of which the\nmotives are sufficiently intelligible, and which directly concern\nthe practical interests of the whole community. Under this head\nwould be included decisions of law courts, declarations of war,\netc. When society has reached the Positive state, and the sense of\nuniversal solidarity is more generally diffused, there will be even\nmore significance and dignity in such expressions than there is now,\nbecause the name invoked will no longer be that of a special nation,\nbut that of Humanity as a whole. It would be absurd, however, to extend\nthis practice to those still more numerous cases where the people is\nincompetent to express any opinion, and has merely to adopt the opinion\nof superior officers who have obtained its confidence. This may be\nowing either to the difficulty of the question or to the fact of its\napplication being indirect or limited. Such, for instance, would be\nenactments, very often of great importance, which deal with scientific\nprinciples; or again most questions relating to special professions\nor branches of industry. In all these cases popular good sense would,\nunder Positivist influence, easily be kept clear from political\nillusions. It is only under the stimulus of metaphysical pride that\nsuch illusions become dangerous; and the untaught masses have but\nlittle experience of this feeling.\n\nThere is, however, another truth implied in the expression,\nSovereignity of the people. It implies that it is the first of duties\nto concentrate all the efforts of society upon the common good. And in\nthis there is a more direct reference to the working class than to any\nother; first, on account of their immense numerical superiority, and,\nsecondly, because the difficulties by which their life is surrounded\nrequire special interference to a degree which for other classes would\nbe unnecessary. From this point of view it is a principle which all\ntrue republicans may accept. It is, in fact, identical with what we\nhave laid down as the universal basis of morality, the direct and\npermanent preponderance of social feeling over all personal interests.\nNot merely, then, is it incorporated by Positivism, but, as was shown\nin the first chapter, it forms the primary principle of the system,\neven under the intellectual aspect. Since the decline of Catholicism\nthe metaphysical spirit has been provisionally the guardian of this\ngreat social precept. Positivism now finally appropriates it, and\npurifies it for the future from all taint of anarchy. Revolutionists,\nas we should expect from their characteristic dislike to the separation\nof the two powers, had treated the question politically. Positivism\navoids all danger by shifting it to the region of morality. I shall\nshow presently that this very salutary change, so far from weakening\nthe force of the principle, increases its permanent value, and at the\nsame time removes the deceptive and subversive tendencies which are\nalways involved in the metaphysical mode of regarding it.\n\n [The People\u2019s function is to\n assist the spiritual power\n in modifying the action of\n government]\n\nWhat then, it will be asked, is the part assigned to the Proletariate\nin the final constitution of society? This similarity of position which\nI pointed out between themselves and the philosophic class suggests the\nanswer. They will be of the most essential service to the spiritual\npower in each of its three social functions, judgment, counsel, and\neven education. All the intellectual and moral qualities that we have\njust indicated in this class concur in fitting them for this service.\nIf we except the philosophic body, which is the recognized organ of\ngeneral principles, there is no class which is so habitually inclined\nto take comprehensive views of any subject. Their superiority in Social\nFeeling is still more obvious. In this even the best philosophers are\nrarely their equals; and it would be a most beneficial corrective of\ntheir tendency to over-abstraction to come into daily contact with the\nnoble and spontaneous instincts of the people. The working class, then,\nis better qualified than any other for understanding, and still more\nfor sympathizing with the highest truths of morality, though it may\nnot be able to give them a systematic form. And, as we have seen, it\nis in social morality, the most important and the highest of the three\nbranches of Ethics, that their superiority is most observable. Besides,\nindependently of their intrinsic merits, whether intellectual or moral,\nthe necessities of their daily life serve to impress them with respect\nfor the great rules of morality, which in most cases were framed for\ntheir own protection. To secure the application of these rules in daily\nlife is a function of the spiritual power in the performance of which\nthey will meet with but slight assistance from the middle classes. It\nis with them that temporal power naturally resides, and it is their\nmisuse of power that has to be controlled and set right. The working\nclasses are the chief sufferers from the selfishness and domineering\nof men of wealth and power. For this reason they are the likeliest to\ncome forward in defence of public morality. And they will be all the\nmore disposed to give it their hearty support if they have nothing to\ndo directly with political administration. Habitual participation in\ntemporal power, to say nothing of its unsettling influence, would\nlead them away from the best remedy for their sufferings of which the\nconstitution of society admits. Popular sagacity will soon detect the\nutter hollowness of the off-hand solutions that are now being obtruded\nupon us. The people will rapidly become convinced that the surest\nmethod of satisfying all legitimate claims lies in the moral agencies\nwhich Positivism offers, though it appears to them at the same time to\nabdicate political power which either yields them nothing or results in\nanarchy.\n\nSo natural is this tendency of the people to rally round the spiritual\npower in defence of morality, that we find it to have been the\ncase even in mediaeval times. Indeed this it is which explains the\nsympathies which Catholicism still retains, notwithstanding its\ngeneral decline, in the countries where Protestantism has failed to\nestablish itself. Superficial observers often mistake these sympathies\nfor evidence of sincere attachment to the old creeds, though in point\nof fact they are more thoroughly undermined in those countries than\nanywhere else. It is an historical error which will, however, soon be\ncorrected by the reception which these nations, so wrongly imagined\nto be in a backward stage of political development, will give to\nPositivism. For they will soon see its superiority to Catholicism in\nsatisfying the primary necessity with which their social instincts are\nso justly preoccupied.\n\nIn the Middle Ages, however, the relations between the working classes\nand the priesthood were hampered by the institution of serfage, which\nwas not wholly abolished until Catholicism had begun to decline. In\nfact a careful study of history will show that one of the principal\ncauses of its decline was the want of popular support. The mediaeval\nchurch was a noble, but premature attempt. Disbelief in its doctrines,\nand also retrograde tendencies in its directors, had virtually\ndestroyed it, before the Proletariate had attained sufficient social\nimportance to support it successfully, supposing it could have deserved\ntheir support. But we are now sufficiently advanced for the perfect\nrealization of the Catholic ideal in Positivism. And the principal\nmeans of realizing it will be the formation of an alliance between\nphilosophers and the working classes, for which both are alike prepared\nby the negative and positive progress of the last five centuries.\n\n [Their combined efforts\n result in the formation of\n Public Opinion]\n\nThe direct object of their combined action will be to set in motion the\nforce of Public Opinion. All views of the future condition of society,\nthe views of practical men as well as of philosophic thinkers, agree\nin the belief that the principal feature of the state to which we\nare tending, will be the increased influence which Public Opinion is\ndestined to exercise.\n\nIt is in this beneficial influence that we shall find the surest\nguarantee for morality; for domestic and even for personal morality,\nas well as for social. For as the whole tendency of Positivism is to\ninduce every one to live as far as possible without concealment, the\npublic will be intrusted with a strong check upon the life of the\nindividual. Now that all theological illusions have become so entirely\nobsolete, the need of such a check is greater than it was before. It\ncompensates for the insufficiency of natural goodness which we find in\nmost men, however wisely their education has been conducted. Except\nthe noblest of joys, that which springs from social sympathy when\ncalled into constant exercise, there is no reward for doing right\nso satisfactory as the approval of our fellow-beings. Even under\ntheological systems it has been one of our strongest aspirations to\nlive esteemed in the memory of others. And still more prominence will\nbe given to this noble form of ambition under Positivism, because\nit is the only way left us of satisfying the desire which all men\nfeel of prolonging their life into the Future. And the increased\nforce of Public Opinion will correspond to the increased necessity\nfor it. The peculiar reality of Positive doctrine and its constant\nconformity with facts facilitate the recognition of its principles,\nand remove all obscurity in their application. They are not to be\nevaded by subterfuges like those to which metaphysical and theological\nprinciples, from their vague and absolute character, have been always\nliable. Again, the primary principle of Positivism, which is to judge\nevery question by the standard of social interests, is in itself a\ndirect appeal to Public Opinion; since the public is naturally the\njudge of the good or bad effect of action upon the common welfare.\nUnder theological and metaphysical systems no appeal of this sort was\nrecognized; because the objects upheld as the highest aims of life were\npurely personal.\n\nIn political questions the application of our principle is still more\nobvious. For political morality Public Opinion is almost our only\nguarantee. We feel its force even now in spite of the intellectual\nanarchy in which we live. Neutralized as it is in most cases by the\nwide divergences of men\u2019s convictions, yet it shows itself on the\noccasion of any great public excitement. Indeed, we feel it to our cost\nsometimes when the popular mind has taken a wrong direction; government\nin such cases being very seldom able to offer adequate resistance.\nThese cases may convince us how irresistible this power will prove when\nused legitimately, and when it is formed by systematic accordance in\ngeneral principles instead of by a precarious and momentary coincidence\nof feeling. And here we see more clearly than ever how impossible\nit is to effect any permanent reconstruction of the institutions of\nsociety, without a previous reorganization of opinion and of life. The\nspiritual basis is necessary not merely to determine the character\nof the temporal reconstruction, but to supply the principal motive\nforce by which the work is to be carried out. Intellectual and moral\nharmony will gradually be restored, and under its influence the new\npolitical system will by degrees arise. Social improvements of the\nhighest importance may therefore be realized long before the work of\nspiritual reorganization is completed. We find in mediaeval history\nthat Catholicism exercised a powerful influence on society during its\nemergence from barbarism, before its own internal constitution had\nadvanced far. And this will be the case to a still greater degree with\nthe regeneration which is now in progress.\n\n [Public opinion involves,\n (1) principles of social\n conduct, (2) their\n acceptance by society at\n large, (3) an organ through\n which to enunciate them]\n\nHaving defined the sphere within which Public Opinion should operate,\nwe shall find little difficulty in determining the conditions requisite\nfor its proper organization. These are, first, the establishment of\nfixed principles of social action; secondly, their adoption by the\npublic, and its consent to their application in special cases; and,\nlastly, a recognized organ to lay down the principles, and to apply\nthem to the conduct of daily life. Obvious as these three conditions\nappear, they are still so little understood, that it will be well to\nexplain each of them somewhat more fully.\n\nThe first condition, that of laying down fixed principles, is, in fact,\nthe extension to social questions of that separation between theory\nand practice, which in subjects of less importance is universally\nrecognized. This is the aspect in which the superiority of the new\nspiritual system to the old is most perceptible. The principles of\nmoral and political conduct that were accepted in the Middle Ages\nwere little better than empirical, and owed their stability entirely\nto the sanction of religion. In this respect, indeed, the superiority\nof Catholicism to the systems which preceded it, consisted merely in\nthe fact of separating its precepts from the special application of\nthem. By making its precepts the distinct object of preliminary study,\nit secured them against the bias of human passions. Yet important as\nthis separation was, the system was so defective intellectually, that\nthe successful application of its principles depended simply on the\ngood sense of the teachers; for the principles in themselves were as\nvague and as absolute as the creeds from which they were derived. The\ninfluence exercised by Catholicism was due to its indirect action upon\nsocial feeling in the only mode then possible. But the claims with\nwhich Positivism presents itself are far more satisfactory. It is based\non a complete synthesis; one which embraces, not the outer world only,\nbut the inner world of human nature. This, while in no way detracting\nfrom the practical value of social principles, give them the imposing\nweight of theoretical truth; and ensures their stability and coherence,\nby connecting them with the whole series of laws on which the life of\nman and of society depend. For these laws will corroborate even those\nwhich are not immediately deduced from them. By connecting all our\nrules of action with the fundamental conception of social duty, we\nrender their interpretation in each special case clear and consistent,\nand we secure it against the sophisms of passion. Principles such as\nthese, based on reason, and rendering our conduct independent of the\nimpulses of the moment, are the only means of sustaining the vigour\nof Social Feeling, and at the same time of saving us from the errors\nto which its unguided suggestions so often lead. Direct and constant\nculture of Social Feeling in public as well as in private life is no\ndoubt the first condition of morality. But the natural strength of\nSelf-love is such that something besides this is required to control\nit. The course of conduct must be traced beforehand in all important\ncases by the aid of demonstrable principles, adopted at first upon\ntrust, and afterwards from conviction.\n\nThere is no art whatever in which, however ardent and sincere our\ndesire to succeed, we can dispense with knowledge of the nature and\nconditions of the object aimed at. Moral and political conduct is\nassuredly not exempt from such an obligation, although we are more\ninfluenced in this case by the direct promptings of feeling than in\nany other of the arts of life. It has been shown only too clearly by\nmany striking instances how far Social Feeling may lead us astray\nwhen it is not directed by right principles. It was for want of fixed\nconvictions that the noble sympathies entertained by the French\nnation for the rest of Europe at the outset of the Revolution so soon\ndegenerated into forcible oppression, when her retrograde leader began\nhis seductive appeal to selfish passions. Inverse cases are still more\ncommon; and they illustrate the connexion of feeling and opinion as\nclearly as the others. A false social doctrine has often favoured the\nnatural ascendency of Self-love by giving a perverted conception of\npublic well-being. This has been too plainly exemplified in our own\ntime by the deplorable influence which Malthus\u2019s sophistical theory\nof population obtained in England. This mischievous error met with\nvery little acceptance in the rest of Europe, and it has been already\nrefuted by the nobler thinkers of his own country; but it still gives\nthe show of scientific sanction to the criminal antipathy of the\ngoverning classes in Great Britain to all effectual measures of reform.\n\nNext to a system of principles, the most important condition for\nthe exercise of Public Opinion is the existence of a strong body of\nsupporters sufficient to make the weight of these principles felt. Now\nit was here that Catholicism proved so weak; and therefore, even had\nits doctrine been less perishable, its decline was unavoidable. But\nthe defect is amply supplied in the new spiritual order, which, as I\nhave before shown, will receive the influential support of the working\nclasses. And the need of such assistance is as certain as the readiness\nwith which it will be yielded. For though the intrinsic efficacy of\nPositive teaching is far greater than that of any doctrine which is not\nsusceptible of demonstration, yet the convictions it inspires cannot\nbe expected to dispense with the aid of vigorous popular support.\nHuman nature is imperfectly organized; and the influence which Reason\nexercises over it is not by any means so great as this supposition\nwould imply. Even Social Feeling, though its influence is far greater\nthan that of Reason, would not in general be sufficient for the right\nguidance of practical life, if Public Opinion were not constantly at\nhand to support the good inclinations of individuals. The arduous\nstruggle of Social Feeling against Self-love requires the constant\nassertion of true principles to remove uncertainty as to the proper\ncourse of action in each case. But it requires also something more.\nThe strong reaction of All upon Each is needed, whether to control\nselfishness or to stimulate sympathy. The tendency of our poor and weak\nnature to give way to the lower propensities is so great that, but\nfor this universal co-operation, Feeling and Reason would be almost\ninadequate to their task. In the working class we find the requisite\nconditions. They will, as we have seen, form the principal source of\nopinion, not merely from their numerical superiority, but also from\ntheir intellectual and moral qualities, as well as from the influence\ndirectly due to their social position. Thus it is that Positivism views\nthe great problem of human life, and shows us for the first time that\nthe bases of a solution already exist in the very structure of the\nsocial organism.\n\n [Working men\u2019s clubs]\n\nWorking men, whether as individuals or, what is still more important,\ncollectively, are now at liberty to criticize all the details, and\neven the general principles, of the social system under which they\nlive; affecting, as it necessarily does, themselves more nearly than\nany other class. The remarkable eagerness lately shown by our people\nto form clubs, though there was no special motive for it, and no very\nmarked enthusiasm, was a proof that the checks which had previously\nprevented this tendency from showing itself were quite unsuited to our\ntimes. Nor is this tendency likely to pass away; on the contrary, it\nwill take deeper root and extend more widely, because it is thoroughly\nin keeping with the habits, feelings, and wants of working men, who\nform the majority in these meetings. A consistent system of social\ntruth will largely increase their influence, by giving them a more\nsettled character and a more important aim. So far from being in any\nway destructive, they form a natural though imperfect model of the\nmode of life which will ultimately be adopted in the regenerate\ncondition of Humanity. In these unions social sympathies are kept in\nconstant action by a stimulus of a most beneficial kind. They offer the\nspeediest and most effectual means of elaborating Public Opinion: this\nat least is the case when there has been a fair measure of individual\ntraining. No one at present has any idea of the extent of the\nadvantages which will one day spring from these spontaneous meetings,\nwhen there is an adequate system of general principles to direct\nthem. Spiritual reorganization will find them its principal basis\nof support, for they secure its acceptance by the people; and this\nwill have the greater weight, because it will always be given without\ncompulsion or violence. The objection that meetings of this kind may\nlead to dangerous political agitation, rests upon a misinterpretation\nof the events of the Revolution. So far from their stimulating a desire\nfor what are called political rights, or encouraging their exercise\nin those who possess them, their tendency is quite in the opposite\ndirection. They will soon divert working men entirely from all useless\nattempts to interfere with existing political institutions, and bring\nthem to their true social function, that of assisting and carrying out\nthe operations of the new spiritual power. It is a noble prospect which\nis thus held out to them by Positivism, a prospect far more inviting\nthan any of the metaphysical illusions of the day. The real intention\nof the Club is to form a provisional substitute for the Church of old\ntimes, or rather to prepare the way for the religious building of\nthe new form of worship, the worship of Humanity; which, as I shall\nexplain in a subsequent chapter, will be gradually introduced under\nthe regenerating influence of Positive doctrine. Under our present\nrepublican government all progressive tendencies are allowed free\nscope, and therefore it will not be long before our people accept\nthis new vent for social sympathies, which in former times could find\nexpression only in Catholicism.\n\nIn this theory of Public Opinion one condition yet remains to\nbe described. A philosophic organ is necessary to interpret the\ndoctrine; the influence of which would otherwise in most cases be\nvery inadequate. This third condition has been much disputed; but it\nis certainly even more indispensable than the second. And in fact it\nhas never been really wanting, for every doctrine must have had some\nfounder, and usually has a permanent body of teachers. It would be\ndifficult to conceive that a system of moral and political principles\nshould be possessed of great social influence, and yet at the same time\nthat the men who originate or inculcate the system should exercise no\nspiritual authority. It is true that this inconsistency did for a time\nexist under the negative and destructive influence of Protestantism and\nDeism, because men\u2019s thoughts were for the time entirely taken up with\nthe struggle to escape from the retrograde tendencies of Catholicism.\nDuring this long period of insurrection, each individual became a\nsort of priest; each, that is, followed his own interpretation of a\ndoctrine which needed no special teachers, because its function was\nnot to construct but to criticize. All the constitutions that have\nbeen recently established on metaphysical principles give a direct\nsanction to this state of things, in the preambles with which they\ncommence. They apparently regard each citizen as competent to form a\nsound opinion on all social questions, thus exempting him from the\nnecessity of applying to any special interpreters. This extension\nto the normal state of things of a phase of mind only suited to the\nperiod of revolutionary transition, is an error which I have already\nsufficiently refuted.\n\nIn the minor arts of life, it is obvious that general principles cannot\nbe laid down without some theoretical study; and that the application\nof these rules to special cases is not to be entirely left to the\nuntaught instinct of the artisan. And can it be otherwise with the\nart of Social Life, so far harder and more important than any other,\nand in which, from its principles being less simple and less precise,\na special explanation of them in each case is even more necessary?\nHowever perfect the demonstration of social principles may become,\nit must not be supposed that knowledge of Positive doctrine, even\nwhen it has been taught in the most efficient way, will dispense with\nthe necessity of frequently appealing to the philosopher for advice\nin questions of practical life, whether private or public. And this\nnecessity of an interpreter to intervene occasionally between the\nprinciple and its application, is even more evident from the moral\nthan it is from the intellectual aspect. Certain as it is that no one\nwill be so well acquainted with the true character of the doctrine as\nthe philosopher who teaches it, it is even more certain that none is\nso likely as himself to possess the moral qualifications of purity,\nof exalted aims, and of freedom from party spirit, without which his\ncounsels could have but little weight in reforming individual or social\nconduct. It is principally through his agency that we may hope in most\ncases to bring about that reaction of All upon Each, which, as we\nhave seen, is of such indispensable importance to practical morality.\nPhilosophers are not indeed the principal source of Public Opinion,\nas intellectual pride so often leads them to believe. Public Opinion\nproceeds essentially from the free voice and spontaneous co-operation\nof the people. But in order that the full weight of their unanimous\njudgment may be felt, it must be announced by some recognized organ.\nThere are, no doubt, rare cases where the direct expression of popular\nfeeling is enough, but these are quite exceptional. Thus working men\nand philosophers are mutually necessary, not merely in the creation\nof Public Opinion, but also in most cases in the manifestation of it.\nWithout the first, the doctrine, however well established, would not\nhave sufficient force. Without the second, it would usually be too\nincoherent to overcome those obstacles in the constitution of man and\nof society, which make it so difficult to bring practical life under\nthe influence of fixed principles.\n\nIn fact this necessity for some systematic organ to direct and give\neffect to Public Opinion, has always been felt, even amidst the\nspiritual anarchy which at present surrounds us, on every occasion in\nwhich such opinion has played any important part. For its effect on\nthese occasions would have been null and void but for some individual\nto take the initiative and personal responsibility. This is frequently\nverified in private life by cases in which we see the opposite state\nof things; we see principles which no one would think of contesting,\npractically inadequate, for want of some recognized authority to apply\nthem. It is a serious deficiency, which is, however, compensated,\nthough imperfectly, by the greater facility of arriving at the truth in\nsuch cases, and by the greater strength of the sympathies which they\ncall forth. But in public life, with its more difficult conditions and\nmore important claims, such entire absence of systematic intervention\ncould never be tolerated. In all public transactions even now we\nmay perceive the participation of a spiritual authority of one kind\nor other; the organs of which, though constantly varying, are in\nmost cases metaphysicians or literary men writing for the press.\nThus even in the present anarchy of feelings and convictions, Public\nOpinion cannot dispense with guides and interpreters. Only it has to\nbe content with men who at the best can only offer the guarantee of\npersonal responsibility, without any reliable security either for\nthe stability of their convictions or the purity of their feelings.\nBut now that the problem of organizing Public Opinion has once been\nproposed by Positivism, it cannot remain long without a solution. It\nplainly reduces itself to the principle of separating the two social\npowers; just as we have seen that the necessity of an established\ndoctrine rested on the analogous principle of separating theory from\npractice. It is clear, on the one hand, that sound interpretation of\nmoral and political rules, as in the case of any other art, can only\nbe furnished by philosophers engaged in the study of the natural laws\non which they rest. On the other hand these philosophers, in order to\npreserve that breadth and generality of view which is their principal\nintellectual characteristic, must abstain scrupulously from all regular\nparticipation in practical affairs, and especially from political life:\non the ground that its specializing influence would soon impair their\nspeculative capacity. And such a course is equally necessary on moral\ngrounds. It helps to preserve purity of feeling and impartiality of\ncharacter; qualities essential to their influence upon public as well\nas upon private life.\n\nSuch, in outline, is the Positive theory of Public Opinion. In each\nof its three constituent elements, the Doctrine, the Power, and the\nOrgan, it is intimately connected with the whole question of spiritual\nreorganization; or rather, it forms the simplest mode of viewing that\ngreat subject. All the essential parts of it are closely related to\neach other. Positive principles, on the one hand, cannot count on much\nmaterial support, except from the working classes; these in their turn\nwill for the future regard Positivism as the only doctrine with which\nthey can sympathize. So, again, with the philosophic organs of opinion;\nwithout the People, their necessary independence cannot be established\nor sustained. To our literary classes the separation of the two powers\nis instinctively repugnant, because it would lay down systematic\nlimits to the unwise ambition which we now see in them. And it will\nbe disliked as strongly by the rich classes, who will look with fear\nupon a new moral authority destined to impose an irresistible check\nupon their selfishness. At present it will be generally understood\nand welcomed only by the proletary class, who have more aptitude for\ngeneral views and for social sympathy. In France especially they are\nless under the delusion of metaphysical sophisms and of aristocratic\nprestige than any other class; and the Positivist view of this primary\ncondition of social regeneration will find a ready entrance into their\nminds and hearts.\n\n [All three conditions of\n Public Opinion exist, but\n have not yet been combined]\n\nOur theory of Public Opinion shows us at once how far we have already\ngone in organizing this great regulator of modern society; how far we\nstill fall short of what is wanted. The Doctrine has at last arisen:\nthere is no doubt of the existence of the Power; and even the Organ is\nnot wanting. But they do not as yet stand in their right relation to\neach other. The effective impulse towards social regeneration depends,\nthen, on one ultimate condition; the formation of a firm alliance\nbetween philosophers and proletaries.\n\nOf this powerful coalition I have already spoken. I have now to\nexplain the advantages which it offers to the people in the way of\nobtaining sufficient recognition of all legitimate claims.\n\nOf these advantages, the principal, and that by which the rest will\nspeedily be developed and secured, is the important social function\nwhich is hereby conferred upon them. They become auxiliaries of the\nnew spiritual power; auxiliaries indispensable to its action. This\nvast proletary class, which ever since its rise in the Middle Ages has\nbeen shut out from the political system, will now assume the position\nfor which by nature it is best adapted, and which is most conducive\nto the general well-being of society. Its members, independently of\ntheir special vocation, will at last take a regular and most important\npart in public life, a part which will compensate for the hardships\ninseparable from their social position. Their combined action, far\nfrom disturbing the established order of things, will be its most\nsolid guarantee, from the fact of being moral, not political. And here\nwe see definitely the alteration which Positivism introduces in the\nrevolutionary conception of the action of the working classes upon\nsociety. For stormy discussions about rights, it substitutes peaceable\ndefinition of duties. It supersedes useless disputes for the possession\nof power, by inquiring into the rules that should regulate its wise\nemployment.\n\n [Spontaneous tendencies\n in the people of a right\n direction. Their Communism]\n\nA superficial observer of the present state of things might imagine our\nworking classes to be as yet very far from this frame of mind. But he\nwho looks deeper into the question will see that the very experiment\nwhich they are now trying, of extending their political rights, will\nsoon have the effect of showing them the hollowness of a remedy which\nhas so slight a bearing upon the objects really important to them.\nWithout making any formal abdication of rights, which might seem\ninconsistent with their social dignity, there is little doubt that\ntheir instinctive sagacity will lead them to the still more efficacious\nplan of indifference. Positivism will readily convince them that\nwhereas spiritual power, in order to do its work, must ramify in every\ndirection, it is essential to public order that political power should\nbe as a rule concentrated. And this conviction will grow upon them, as\nthey see more clearly that the primary social problems which are very\nproperly absorbing their attention are essentially moral rather than\npolitical.\n\nOne step in this direction they have already taken of their own accord,\nthough its importance has not been duly appreciated. The well-known\nscheme of Communism, which has found such rapid acceptance with them,\nserves, in the absence of sounder doctrine, to express the way in which\nthey are now looking at the great social problem. The experience of\nthe first part of the Revolution has not yet wholly disabused them of\npolitical illusions, but it has at least brought them to feel that\nProperty is of more importance than Power in the ordinary sense of the\nword. So far Communism has given a wider meaning to the great social\nproblem, and has thereby rendered an essential service, which is not\nneutralized by the temporary dangers involved in the metaphysical forms\nin which it comes before us. Communism should therefore be carefully\ndistinguished from the numerous extravagant schemes brought forward in\nthis time of spiritual anarchy; a time which stimulates incompetent\nand ill-trained minds to the most difficult subjects of thought. The\nfoolish schemes referred to have so few definite features, that we have\nto distinguish them by the names of their authors. But Communism bears\nthe name of no single author, and is something more than an accidental\nproduct of anomalous circumstances. We should look upon it as the\nnatural progress in the right direction of the revolutionary spirit;\nprogress of a moral rather than intellectual kind. It is a proof that\nrevolutionary tendencies are now concentrating themselves upon moral\nquestions, leaving all purely political questions in the background.\nIt is quite true that the solution of the problem which Communists are\nnow putting forward, is still as essentially political as that of their\npredecessors; since the only mode by which they propose to regulate the\nemployment of property, is by a change in the mode of its tenure. Still\nit is owing to them that the question of property is at last brought\nforward for discussion: and it is a question which so evidently needs\na moral solution, the solution of it by political means is at once\nso inadequate and so destructive, that it cannot long continue to be\ndebated, without leading to the more satisfactory result offered by\nPositivism. Men will see that it forms a part of the final regeneration\nof opinion and of life, which Positivism is now inaugurating.\n\nTo do justice to Communism, we must look at the generous sympathies\nby which it is inspired, not at the shallow theories in which those\nsympathies find expression provisionally, until circumstances enable\nthem to take some other shape. Our working classes, caring but very\nlittle for metaphysical principles, do not attach nearly the same\nimportance to these theories as is done by men of literary education.\nAs soon as they see a better way of bringing forward the points on\nwhich they have such legitimate claims, they will very soon adopt the\nclear and practical conceptions of Positivism, which can be carried\nout peaceably and permanently, in preference to these vague and\nconfused chimeras, which, as they will instinctively feel, lead only\nto anarchy. Till then they will naturally abide by Communism, as the\nonly method of bringing forward the most fundamental of social problems\nin a way which there shall be no evading. The very alarm which their\npresent solution of the problem arouses helps to stir public attention,\nand fix it on this great subject. But for this constant appeal to their\nfears, the metaphysical delusions and aristocratic self-seeking of the\ngoverning classes would shelve the question altogether, or pass it by\nwith indifference. The errors of Communism must be rectified; but there\nis no necessity for giving up the name, which is a simple assertion of\nthe paramount importance of Social Feeling. However, now that we have\nhappily passed from monarchy to republicanism, the name of _Communist_\nis no longer indispensable; the word _Republican_ expresses the meaning\nas well, and without the same danger. Positivism, then, has nothing to\nfear from Communism; on the contrary, it will probably be accepted by\nmost Communists among the working classes, especially in France where\nabstractions have but little influence on minds thoroughly emancipated\nfrom theology. The people will gradually find that the solution of\nthe great social problem which Positivism offers is better than the\nCommunistic solution.\n\n [Its new title of Socialism]\n\nA tendency in this direction has already shown itself since the first\nedition of this work was published. The working classes have now\nadopted a new expression, _Socialism_, thus indicating that they accept\nthe problem of the Communists while rejecting their solution. Indeed\nthat solution would seem to be finally disposed of by the voluntary\nexile of their leader. Yet, if the Socialists at present keep clear\nof Communism, it is only because their position is one of criticism\nor inaction. If they were to succeed to power, with principles so far\nbelow the level of their sympathies, they would inevitably fall into\nthe same errors and extravagances which they now instinctively feel to\nbe wrong. Consequently the rapid spread of Socialism very naturally\nalarms the upper classes; and their resistance, blind though it be,\nis at present the only legal guarantee for material order. In fact,\nthe problem brought forward by the Communists admits of no solution\nbut their own, so long as the revolutionary confusion of temporal\nand spiritual power continues. Therefore the universal blame that is\nlavished on these utopian schemes cannot fail to inspire respect for\nPositivism, as the only doctrine which can preserve Western Europe\nfrom some serious attempt to bring Communism into practical operation.\nPositivists stand forward now as the party of construction, with a\ndefinite basis for political action; namely, systematic prosecution\nof the wise attempt of mediaeval statesmen to separate the two social\npowers. On this basis they are enabled to satisfy the Poor, and at\nthe same time to restore the confidence of the Rich. It is a final\nsolution of our difficulties which will make the titles of which we\nhave been speaking unnecessary. Stripping the old word _Republican_ of\nany false meaning at present attached to it, we may retain it as the\nbest expression of the social sympathies on which the regeneration of\nsociety depends. For the opinions, manners, and even institutions of\nfuture society, _Positivist_ is the only word suitable.\n\n [Property is in its nature\n social, and needs control]\n\nThe peculiar reality of Positivism, and its invariable tendency to\nconcentrate our intellectual powers upon social questions, are\nattributes, both of which involve its adoption of the essential\nprinciple of Communism; that principle being, that Property is in its\nnature social, and that it needs control.\n\nProperty has been erroneously represented by most modern jurists as\nconferring an absolute right upon the possessor, irrespectively of\nthe good or bad use made of it. This view is instinctively felt by\nthe working classes to be unsound, and all true philosophers will\nagree with them. It is an anti-social theory, due historically to\nexaggerated reaction against previous legislation of a peculiarly\noppressive kind, but it has no real foundation either in justice or\nin fact. Property can neither be created, nor even transmitted by the\nsole agency of its possessor. The co-operation of the public is always\nnecessary, whether in the assertion of the general principle or in\nthe application of it to each special case. Therefore the tenure of\nproperty is not to be regarded as a purely individual right. In every\nage and in every country the state has intervened, to a greater or less\ndegree, making property subservient to social requirements. Taxation\nevidently gives the public an interest in the private fortune of each\nindividual; an interest which, instead of diminishing with the progress\nof civilization, has been always on the increase, especially in modern\ntimes, now that the connexion of each member of society with the whole\nis becoming more apparent. The practice of confiscation, which also is\nin universal use, shows that in certain extreme cases the community\nconsiders itself authorized to assume entire possession of private\nproperty. Confiscation has, it is true, been abolished for a time in\nFrance. But this isolated exception is due only to the abuses which\nrecently accompanied the exercise of what was in itself an undoubted\nright; and it will hardly survive when the causes which led to it are\nforgotten, and the power which introduced it has passed away. In their\nabstract views of property, then, Communists are perfectly able to\nmaintain their ground against the jurists.\n\nThey are right, again, in dissenting as deeply as they do from\nthe Economists, who lay it down as an absolute principle that the\napplication of wealth should be entirely unrestricted by society. This\nerror, like the one just spoken of, is attributable to instances of\nunjustifiable interference. But it is utterly opposed to all sound\nphilosophical teaching, although it has a certain appearance of truth,\nin so far as it recognizes the subordination of social phenomena to\nnatural laws. But the Economists seem to have adopted this important\nprinciple only to show how incapable they are of comprehending it.\nBefore they applied the conception of Law to the higher phenomena of\nnature, they ought to have made themselves well acquainted with its\nmeaning, as applied to the lower and more simple phenomena. Not having\ndone so, they have been utterly blind to the fact that the Order of\nnature becomes more and more modifiable as it grows more complicated.\nThis conception lies at the very root of our whole practical life;\ntherefore nothing can excuse the metaphysical school of Economists\nfor systematically resisting the intervention of human wisdom in the\nvarious departments of social action. That the movement of society is\nsubject to natural laws is certain; but this truth, instead of inducing\nus to abandon all efforts to modify society, should rather lead to\na wiser application of such efforts, since they are at once more\nefficacious, and more necessary in social phenomena than in any other.\n\nSo far, therefore, the fundamental principle of Communism is one\nwhich the Positivist school must obviously adopt. Positivism not\nonly confirms this principle, but widens its scope, by showing its\napplication to other departments of human life; by insisting that,\nnot wealth only, but that all our powers shall be devoted in the\ntrue republican spirit to the continuous service of the community.\nThe long period of revolution which has elapsed since the Middle\nAges has encouraged individualism in the moral world, as in the\nintellectual it has fostered the specializing tendency. But both are\nequally inconsistent with the final order of modern society. In all\nhealthy conditions of Humanity, the citizen, whatever his position,\nhas been regarded as a public functionary, whose duties and claims\nwere determined more or less distinctly by his faculties. The case\nof property is certainly no exception to this general principle.\nProprietorship is regarded by the Positivist as an important social\nfunction; the function, namely, of creating and administering that\ncapital by means of which each generation lays the foundation for the\noperations of its successor. This is the only tenable view of property;\nand wisely interpreted, it is one which, while ennobling to its\npossessor, does not exclude a due measure of freedom. It will in fact\nplace his position on a firmer basis than ever.\n\n [But Positivism rejects the\n Communist solution of the\n problem. Property is to be\n controlled by moral not\n legal agencies]\n\nBut the agreement here pointed out the between sociological science\nand the spontaneous inspirations of popular judgment, goes no farther.\nPositivists accept, and indeed enlarge, the programme of Communism;\nbut we reject its practical solution on the ground that it is at\nonce inadequate and subversive. The chief difference between our\nown solution and theirs is that we substitute moral agencies for\npolitical. Thus we come again to our leading principle of separating\nspiritual from temporal power; a principle which, disregarded as it\nhas hitherto been in the system of modern renovators, will be found in\nevery one of the important problems of our time to be the sole possible\nissue. In the present case, while throwing such light on the fallacy\nof Communism, it should lead us to excuse the fallacy, by reminding\nus that politicians of every accredited school are equally guilty of\nit. At a time when there are so very few, even of cultivated minds,\nwho have a clear conception of this the primary principle of modern\npolitics, it would be harsh to blame the people for still accepting a\nresult of revolutionary empiricism, which is so universally adopted by\nother classes.\n\nI need not enter here into any detailed criticism of the utopian\nscheme of Plato. It was conclusively refuted twenty-two centuries ago,\nby the great Aristotle, who thus exemplified the organic character,\nby which, even in its earliest manifestations, the Positive spirit\nis distinguished. In modern Communism, moreover, there is one fatal\ninconsistency, which while it proves the utter weakness of the system,\ntestifies at the same time to the honourable character of the motives\nfrom which it arose. Modern Communism differs from the ancient, as\nexpounded by Plato, in not making women and children common as well as\nproperty; a result to which the principle itself obviously leads. Yet\nthis, the only consistent view of Communism, is adopted by none but\na very few literary men, whose affections, in themselves too feeble,\nhave been perverted by vicious intellectual training. Our untaught\nproletaries, who are the only Communists worthy our consideration, are\nnobly inconsistent in this respect. Indivisible as their erroneous\nsystem is, they only adopt that side of it which touches on their\nsocial requirements. The other side is repugnant to all their highest\ninstincts, and they utterly repudiate it.\n\nWithout discussing these chimerical schemes in detail, it will be well\nto expose the errors inherent in the method of reasoning which leads to\nthem, because they are common to all the other progressive schools, the\nPositivist school excepted. The mistake consists in the first place,\nin disregarding or even denying the natural laws which regulate social\nphenomena; and secondly, in resorting to political agencies where\nmoral agency is the real thing needed. The inadequacy and the danger\nof the various utopian systems which are now setting up their rival\nclaims to bring about the regeneration of society, are all attributable\nin reality to these two closely-connected errors. For the sake of\nclearness, I shall continue to refer specially to Communism as the most\nprominent of these systems. But it will be easy to extend the bearing\nof my remarks to all the rest.\n\n [Individualization of\n functions as necessary as\n co-operation]\n\nThe ignorance of the true laws of social life under which Communists\nlabour is evident in their dangerous tendency to suppress\nindividuality. Not only do they ignore the inherent preponderance in\nour nature of the personal instincts; but they forget that, in the\ncollective Organism, the separation of functions is a feature no less\nessential than the co-operation of functions. Suppose for a moment\nthat the connexion between men could be made such that they were\nphysically inseparable, as has been actually the case with twins in\ncertain cases of monstrosity; society would obviously be impossible.\nExtravagant as this supposition is, it may illustrate the fact that in\nsocial life individuality cannot be dispensed with. It is necessary\nin order to admit of that variety of simultaneous efforts which\nconstitutes the immense superiority of the Social Organism over every\nindividual life. The great problem for man is to harmonize, as far as\npossible, the freedom resulting from isolation, with the equally urgent\nnecessity for convergence. To dwell exclusively upon the necessity\nof convergence would tend to undermine not merely our practical\nenergy, but our true dignity; since it would do away with the sense\nof personal responsibility. In exceptional cases where life is spent\nin forced subjection to domestic authority, the comforts of home are\noften not enough to prevent existence from becoming an intolerable\nburden, simply from the want of sufficient independence. What would\nit be, then, if everybody stood in a similar position of dependence\ntowards a community that was indifferent to his happiness? Yet no less\na danger than this would be the result of adopting any of those utopian\nschemes which sacrifice true liberty to uncontrolled equality, or even\nto an exaggerated sense of fraternity. Wide as the divergence between\nPositivism and the Economic schools is, Positivists adopt substantially\nthe strictures which they have passed upon Communism; especially those\nof Dunoyer, their most advanced writer.\n\n [Industry requires its\n captains as well as War]\n\nThere is another point in which Communism is equally inconsistent with\nthe laws of Sociology. Acting under false views of the constitution\nof our modern industrial system, it proposes to remove its directors,\nwho form so essential a part of it. An army can no more exist without\nofficers than without soldiers; and this elementary truth holds good of\nIndustry as well as of War. The organization of modern industry has not\nbeen found practicable as yet; but the germ of such organization lies\nunquestionably in the division which has arisen spontaneously between\nCapitalist and Workman. No great works could be undertaken if each\nworker were also to be a director, or if the management, instead of\nbeing fixed, were entrusted to a passive and irresponsible body. It is\nevident that under the present system of industry there is a tendency\nto a constant enlargement of undertakings: each fresh step leads at\nonce to still further extension. Now this tendency, so far from being\nopposed to the interests of the working classes, is a condition which\nwill most seriously facilitate the real organization of our material\nexistence, as soon as we have a moral authority competent to control\nit. For it is only the larger employers that the spiritual power can\nhope to penetrate with a strong and habitual sense of duty to their\nsubordinates. Without a sufficient concentration of material power,\nthe means of satisfying the claims of morality would be found wanting,\nexcept at such exorbitant sacrifices as would be incompatible with all\nindustrial progress. This is the weak point of every plan of reform\nwhich limits itself to the mode of acquiring power, whether public\npower or private, instead of aiming at controlling its use in whosever\nhands it may be placed. It leads to a waste of those forces which, when\nrightly used, form our principal resource in dealing with grave social\ndifficulties.\n\n [Communism is deficient in\n the historical spirit]\n\nThe motives, therefore, from which modern Communism has arisen,\nhowever estimable, lead at present, in the want of proper scientific\nteaching, to a very wrong view both of the nature of the disease and\nof its remedy. A heavier reproach against it is, that in one point it\nshows a manifest insufficiency of social instinct. Communists boast of\ntheir spirit of social union; but they limit it to the union of the\npresent generation, stopping short of historical continuity, which yet\nis the principal characteristic of Humanity. When they have matured\ntheir moral growth, and have followed out in Time that connexion which\nat present they only recognize in Space, they will at once see the\nnecessity of these general conditions which at present they would\nreject. They will understand the importance of inheritance, as the\nnatural means by which each generation transmits to its successor\nthe result of its own labours and the means of improving them. The\nnecessity of inheritance, as far as the community is concerned, is\nevident, and its extension to the individual is an obvious consequence.\nBut whatever reproaches Communists may deserve in this respect are\nequally applicable to all the other progressive sects. They are all\npervaded by an anti-historic spirit, which leads them to conceive of\nSociety as though it had no ancestors; and this, although their own\nideas for the most part can have no bearing except upon posterity.\n\n [In fact, as a system, it is\n worthless, though prompted\n by noble feelings]\n\nSerious as these errors are, a philosophic mind will treat the\nCommunism of our day, so far as it is adopted in good faith, with\nindulgence, whether he look at the motives from which it arose, or at\nthe practical results which will follow from it. It is hardly fair to\ncriticize the intrinsic merits of a doctrine, the whole meaning and\nvalue of which are relative to the peculiar phase of society in which\nit is proposed. Communism has in its own way discharged an important\nfunction. It has brought prominently forward the greatest of social\nproblems; and, if we except the recent Positivist explanation, its\nmode of stating it has never been surpassed. And let no one suppose\nthat it would have been enough simply to state the problem, without\nhazarding any solution of it. Those who think so do not understand\nthe exigencies of man\u2019s feeble intellect. In far easier subjects than\nthis, it is impossible to give prolonged attention to questions which\nare simply asked, without any attempt to answer them. Suppose, for\ninstance, that Gall and Broussais had limited themselves to a simple\nstatement of their great problems without venturing on any solution;\ntheir principles, however incontestable, would have been barren of\nresult, for want of that motive power of renovation which nothing can\ngive but a systematic solution of some kind or other, hazardous as the\nattempt must be at first. Now it is hardly likely that we should be\nable to evade this condition of our mental faculties in subjects which\nare not only of the highest difficulty, but also more exposed than any\nothers to the influence of passion. Besides, when we compare the errors\nof Communism with those of other social doctrines which have recently\nreceived official sanction, we shall feel more disposed to palliate\nthem. Are they, for instance, more shallow and more really dangerous\nthan the absurd and chimerical notion which was accepted in France for\na whole generation, and is still upheld by so many political teachers;\nthe notion that the great Revolution has found its final issue in the\nconstitutional system of government, a system peculiar to England\nduring her stage of transition? Moreover, our so-called conservatives\nonly escape the errors of Communism by evading or ignoring its\nproblems, though they are becoming every day more urgent. Whenever\nthey are induced to deal with them, they render themselves liable to\nexactly the same dangers, dangers common to all schools which reject\nthe division of the two powers, and which consequently are for ever\ntrying to make legislation do the work of morality. Accordingly we see\nthe governing classes nowadays upholding institutions of a thoroughly\nCommunist character, such as alms-houses, foundling hospitals, etc.;\nwhile popular feeling strongly and rightly condemns such institutions,\nas being incompatible with that healthy growth of home affection which\nshould be common to all ranks.\n\nWere it not that Communism is provisionally useful in antagonizing\nother doctrines equally erroneous, it would have, then, no real\nimportance, except that due to the motives which originated it; since\nits practical solution is far too chimerical and subversive ever to\nobtain acceptance. Yet, from the high morality of these motives, it\nwill probably maintain and increase its influence until our working\nmen find that their wants can be more effectually satisfied by gentler\nand surer means. Our republican system seems at first sight favourable\nto the scheme; but it cannot fail soon to have the reverse effect,\nbecause, while adopting the social principle which constitutes the real\nmerit of Communism, it repudiates its mischievous illusions. In France,\nat all events, where property is so easy to acquire and is consequently\nso generally enjoyed, the doctrine cannot lead to much practical harm;\nrather its reaction will be beneficial, because it will fix men\u2019s\nminds more seriously on the just claims of the People. The danger is\nfar greater in other parts of Western Europe; especially in England,\nwhere aristocratic influence is less undermined, and where consequently\nthe working classes are less advanced and more oppressed. And even\nin Catholic countries, where individualism and anarchy have been met\nby a truer sense of fraternity, Communistic disturbances can only be\navoided finally by a more rapid dissemination of Positivism, which will\nultimately dispel all social delusions, by offering the true solution\nof the questions that gave rise to them.\n\nThe nature of the evil shows us at once that the remedy we seek must\nbe almost entirely of a moral kind. This truth, based as it is on\nreal knowledge of human nature, the people will soon come to feel\ninstinctively. And here Communists are, without knowing it, preparing\nthe way for the ascendancy of Positivism. They are forcing upon men\u2019s\nnotice in the strongest possible way a problem to which no peaceable\nand satisfactory solution can be given, except by the new philosophy.\n\n [Property is a public trust,\n not to be interfered with\n legally]\n\nThat philosophy, abandoning all useless and irritating discussion as\nto the origin of wealth and the extent of its possession, proceeds at\nonce to the moral rules which should regulate it as a social function.\nThe distribution of power among men, of material power especially, lies\nso far beyond our means of intervention, that to set it before us as\nour main object to rectify the defects of the natural order in this\nrespect, would be to waste our short life in barren and interminable\ndisputes. The chief concern of the public is that power, in whosever\nhands it may be placed, should be exercised for their benefit; and this\nis a point to which we may direct our efforts with far greater effect.\nBesides, by regulating the employment of wealth, we do, indirectly,\nmodify its tenure; for the mode in which wealth is held has some\nsecondary influence over the right use of it.\n\nThe regulations required should be moral, not political in their\nsource; general, not special, in their application. Those who accept\nthem will do so of their own free will, under the influence of their\neducation. Thus their obedience, while steadily maintained, will have,\nas Aristotle long ago observed, the merit of voluntary action. By\nconverting private property into a public function, we would subject\nit to no tyrannical interference; for this, by the destruction of\nfree impulse and responsibility, would prove most deeply degrading to\nman\u2019s character. Indeed, the comparison of proprietors with public\nfunctionaries will frequently be applied in the inverse sense; with the\nview, that is, of strengthening the latter rather than of weakening\nthe former. The true principle of republicanism is, that all forces\nshall work together for the common good. With this view we have on\nthe one hand, to determine precisely what it is that the common good\nrequires; and on the other, to develop the temper of mind most likely\nto satisfy the requirement. The conditions requisite for these two\nobjects are, a recognized Code of principles, an adequate Education,\nand a healthy direction of Public Opinion. For such conditions we must\nlook principally to the philosophic body which Positivism proposes to\nestablish at the apex of modern society. Doubtless this purely moral\ninfluence would not be sufficient of itself. Human frailty is such that\nGovernment, in the ordinary sense of the word, will have as before\nto repress by force the more palpable and more dangerous class of\ndelinquencies. But this additional control, though necessary, will not\nfill so important a place as it did in the Middle Ages under the sway\nof Catholicism. Spiritual rewards and punishments will preponderate\nover temporal, in proportion as human development evokes a stronger\nsense of the ties which unite each with all, by the threefold bond of\nFeeling, Thought, and Action.\n\n [Inheritance favourable to\n its right employment]\n\nPositivism, being more pacific and more efficacious than Communism,\nbecause more true, is also broader and more complete in its solution\nof great social problems. The superficial view of property, springing\ntoo often from envious motives, which condemns Inheritance because\nit admits of possession without labour, is not subversive merely,\nbut narrow. From the moral point of view we see at once the radical\nweakness of these empirical reproaches. They show blindness to the\nfact that this mode of transmitting wealth is really that which is\nmost likely to call out the temper requisite for its right employment.\nIt saves the mind and the heart from the mean and sordid habits which\nare so often engendered by slow accumulation of capital. The man who\nis born to wealth is more likely to feel the wish to be respected. And\nthus those whom we are inclined to condemn as idlers may very easily\nbecome the most useful of the rich classes, under a wise reorganization\nof opinions and habits. Of course too, since with the advance of\nCivilization the difficulty of living without industry increases, the\nclass that we are speaking of becomes more and more exceptional. In\nevery way, then, it is a most serious mistake to wish to upset society\non account of abuses which are already in course of removal, and which\nadmit of conversion to a most beneficial purpose.\n\n [Intellect needs moral\n control as much as wealth]\n\nAgain, another feature in which the Positivist solution surpasses the\nCommunist, is the remarkable completeness of its application. Communism\ntakes no account of anything but wealth; as if wealth were the only\npower in modern society badly distributed and administered. In reality\nthere are greater abuses connected with almost every other power that\nman possesses; and especially with the powers of intellect; yet these\nour visionaries make not the smallest attempt to rectify. Positivism\nbeing the only doctrine that embraces the whole sphere of human\nexistence, is therefore the only doctrine that can elevate Social\nFeeling to its proper place, by extending it to all departments of\nhuman activity without exception. Identification, in a moral sense, of\nprivate functions with public duties is even more necessary in the case\nof the scientific man or the artist, than in that of the proprietor;\nwhether we look at the source from which his powers proceed, or at\nthe object to which they should be directed. Yet the men who wish to\nmake material wealth common, the only kind of wealth that can be held\nexclusively by an individual, never extend their utopian scheme to\nintellectual wealth, in which it would be far more admissible. In fact\nthe apostles of Communism often come forward as zealous supporters\nof what they call literary property. Such inconsistencies show the\nshallowness of the system; it proclaims its own failure in the very\ncases that are most favourable for the application. The extension of\nthe principle here suggested would expose at once the inexpediency\nof political regulations on the subject, and the necessity of moral\nrules; for these and these only can ensure the right use of all our\nfaculties without distinction. Intellectual effort, to be of any\nvalue, must be spontaneous; and it is doubtless an instinctive sense\nof this truth which prevents Communists from subjecting intellectual\nfaculties to their utopian regulations. But Positivism can deal with\nthese faculties which stand in the most urgent need of wise direction,\nwithout inconsistency and without disturbance. It leaves to them\ntheir fair measure of free action; and in the case of other faculties\nwhich, though less eminent, are hardly less dangerous to repress, it\nstrengthens their freedom. When a pure morality arises capable of\nimpressing a social tendency upon every phase of human activity, the\nfreer our action becomes the more useful will it be to the public. The\ntendency of modern civilization, far from impeding private industry, is\nto entrust it more and more with functions, especially with those of a\nmaterial kind, which were originally left to government. Unfortunately\nthis tendency, which is very evident, leads economists into the mistake\nof supposing that industry may be left altogether without organization.\nAll that it really proves is that the influence of moral principles is\ngradually preponderating over that of governmental regulations.\n\n [Action of organized public\n opinion upon Capitalists.\n Strikes]\n\nThe method which is peculiar to Positivism of solving our great\nsocial problems by moral agencies, will be found applicable also to\nthe settlement of industrial disputes, so far as the popular claims\ninvolved are well founded. These claims will thus become clear from\nall tendency to disorder, and will consequently gain immensely in\nforce; especially when they are seen to be consistent with principles\nwhich are freely accepted by all, and when they are supported by\na philosophic body of known impartiality and enlightenment. This\nspiritual power, while impressing on the people the duty of respecting\ntheir temporal leaders, will impose duties upon these latter, which\nthey will find impossible to evade. As all classes will have received\na common education, they will all alike be penetrated with the general\nprinciples on which these special obligations will rest. And these\nweapons, derived from no source but that of Feeling and Reason, and\naided solely by Public Opinion, will wield an influence over practical\nlife, of which nothing in the present day can give any conception. We\nmight compare it with the influence of Catholicism in the Middle Ages,\nonly that men are too apt to attribute the results of Catholicism\nto the chimerical hopes and fears which it inspired, rather than to\nthe energy with which praise and blame were distributed. With the new\nspiritual power praise and blame will form the only resource; but it\nwill be developed and consolidated to a degree which, as I have before\nshown, was impossible for Catholicism.\n\nThis is the only real solution of the disputes that are so constantly\narising between workmen and their employers. Both parties will look\nto this philosophic authority as a supreme court of arbitration. In\nestimating its importance, we must not forget that the antagonism of\nemployer and employed has not yet been pushed to its full consequences.\nThe struggle between wealth and numbers would have been far more\nserious, but for the fact that combination, without which there can be\nno struggle worth speaking of, has hitherto only been permitted to the\ncapitalist. It is true that in England combinations of workmen are not\nlegally prohibited. But in that country they are not yet sufficiently\nemancipated either intellectually or morally, to make such use of the\npower as would be the case in France. When French workmen are allowed\nto concert their plans as freely as their employers, the antagonism\nof interests that will then arise will make both sides feel the need\nof a moral power to arbitrate between them. Not that the conciliating\ninfluence of such a power will ever be such as to do away entirely with\nextreme measures; but it will greatly restrict their application, and\nin cases where they are unavoidable, will mitigate their excesses. Such\nmeasures should be limited on both sides to refusal of co-operation; a\npower which every free agent ought to be allowed to exercise, on his\nown personal responsibility, with the object of impressing on those who\nare teaching him unjustly the importance of the services which he has\nbeen rendering. The workman is not to be compelled to work any more\nthan the capitalist to direct. Any abuse of this extreme protest on\neither side will of course be disapproved by the moral power; but the\noption of making the protest is always to be reserved to each element\nin the collective organism, by virtue of his natural independence.\nIn the most settled times functionaries have always been allowed to\nsuspend their services on special occasions. It was done frequently in\nthe Middle Ages by priests, professors, judges, etc. All we have to\ndo is to regulate this privilege, and embody it into the industrial\nsystem. This will be one of the secondary duties of the philosophic\nbody, who will naturally be consulted on most of these occasions, as\non all others of public or private moment. The formal sanction which\nit may give to a suspension or positive prohibition of work would\nrender such a measure far more effective than it is at present. The\noperation of the measure is but partial at present, but it might in\nthis way extend, first to all who belong to the same trade, then to\nother branches of industry, and even ultimately to every Western nation\nthat accepts the same spiritual guides. Of course persons who think\nthemselves aggrieved may always resort to this extreme course on their\nown responsibility, against the advice of the philosophic body. True\nspiritual power confines itself to giving counsel: it never commands.\nBut in such cases, unless the advice given by the philosophers has been\nwrong, the suspension of work is not likely to be sufficiently general\nto bring about any important result.\n\nThis theory of trade-unions is, in fact, in the industrial world,\nwhat the power of insurrection is with regard to the higher social\nfunctions; it is an ultimate resource which every collective organism\nmust reserve. The principle is the same in the simpler and more\nordinary cases as in the more unusual and important. In both the\nintervention of the philosophic body, whether solicited or not, whether\nits purpose be to organize popular effort or to repress it, will\nlargely influence the result.\n\nWe are now in a position to state with more precision the main\npractical difference between the policy of Positivism, and that of\nCommunism or of Socialism. All progressive political schools agree in\nconcentrating their attention upon the problem, How to give the people\ntheir proper place as a component element of modern Society, which\never since the Middle Ages has been tending more and more distinctly\nto its normal mode of existence. They also agree that the two great\nrequirements of the working classes are, the organization of Education,\nand the organization of Labour. But here their agreement ends. When\nthe means of effecting these two objects have to be considered,\nPositivists find themselves at issue with all other Progressive\nschools. They maintain that the organization of Industry must be based\nupon the organization of Education. It is commonly supposed that both\nmay be begun simultaneously: or indeed that Labour may be organized\nirrespectively of Education. It may seem as if we are making too much\nof a mere question of arrangement; yet the difference is one which\naffects the whole character and method of social reconstruction. The\nplan usually followed is simply a repetition of the old attempt to\nreconstruct politically without waiting for spiritual reconstruction;\nin other words, to raise the social edifice before its intellectual and\nmoral foundations have been laid. Hence the attempts made to satisfy\npopular requirements by measures of a purely political kind, because\nthey appear to meet the evil directly; a course which is as useless\nas it is destructive. Positivism, on the contrary, substitutes for\nsuch agencies, an influence which is sure and peaceful, although it be\ngradual and indirect; the influence of a more enlightened morality,\nsupported by a purer state of Public Opinion; such opinion being\norganized by competent minds, and diffused freely amongst the people.\nIn fact, the whole question, whether the solution of the twofold\nproblem before us is to be empirical, revolutionary, and therefore\nconfined simply to France; or whether it is to be consistent, pacific,\nand applicable to the whole of Western Europe, depends upon the\npreference or the postponement of the organization of Labour to the\norganization of Education.\n\n [Public Opinion must be\n based upon a sound system of\n Education]\n\nThis conclusion involves a brief explanation of the general system of\neducation which Positivism will introduce. This the new spiritual power\nregards as its principal function, and as its most efficient means of\nsatisfying the working classes in all reasonable demands.\n\nIt was the great social virtue of Catholicism, that it introduced\nfor the first time, as far as circumstances permitted, a system of\neducation common to all classes without distinction, not excepting\neven those who were still slaves. It was a vast undertaking, yet\nessential to its purpose of founding a spiritual power which was to be\nindependent of the temporal power. Apart from its temporary value, it\nhas left us one imperishable principle, namely that in all education\nworthy of the name, moral training should be regarded as of greater\nimportance than scientific teaching. Catholic education, however, was\nof course, extremely defective; owing partly to the circumstances of\nthe time, and partly to the weakness of the doctrine on which it\nrested. Having reference almost exclusively to the oppressed masses,\nthe principal lesson which it taught was the duty of almost passive\nresignation, with the exception of certain obligations imposed upon\nrulers. Intellectual culture in any true sense there was none. All\nthis was natural in a faith which directed men\u2019s highest efforts to\nan object unconnected with social life, and which taught that all the\nphenomena of nature were regulated by an impenetrable Will. Catholic\nEducation was consequently quite unsuited to any period but the\nMiddle Ages; a period during which the advanced portion of Humanity\nwas gradually ridding itself of the ancient institution of slavery,\nby commuting it first into serfdom, as a preliminary step to entire\npersonal freedom. In the ancient world Catholic education would have\nbeen too revolutionary; at the present time it would be servile and\ninadequate. Its function was that of directing the long and difficult\ntransition from the social life of Antiquity to that of Modern times.\nPersonal emancipation once obtained, the working classes began to\ndevelop their powers and rise to their true position as a class; and\nthey soon became conscious of intellectual and social wants which\nCatholicism was wholly incapable of satisfying.\n\nAnd yet this is the only real system of universal education which the\nworld has hitherto seen. For we cannot give that name to the so-called\nUniversity system which metaphysicians began to introduce into Europe\nat the close of the Middle Ages; and which offered little more than\nthe special instruction previously given to the priesthood; that\nis, the study of the Latin language, with the dialectical training\nrequired for the defence of their doctrines. Morals were untaught\nexcept as a part of the training of the professed theologian. All this\nmetaphysical and literary instruction was of no great service to social\nevolution, except so far as it developed the critical power; it had,\nhowever, a certain indirect influence on the constructive movement,\nespecially on the development of Art. But its defects, both practical\nand theoretical, have been made more evident by its application to\nnew classes of society, whose occupations, whether practical or\nspeculative, required a very different kind of training. And thus,\nwhile claiming the title of Universal, it never reached the working\nclasses, even in Protestant countries, where each believer became to a\ncertain extent his own priest.\n\nThe theological method being obsolete, and the metaphysical method\ninadequate, the task of founding an efficient system of popular\neducation belongs to Positivism; the only doctrine capable of\nreconciling these two orders of conditions, the intellectual and the\nmoral, which are equally necessary, but which since the Middle Ages\nhave always proved incompatible. Positivist education, while securing\nthe supremacy of the heart over the understanding more efficiently\nthan Catholicism, will yet put no obstacle in the way of intellectual\ngrowth. The function of Intellect, in education as in practical life,\nwill be to regulate Feeling; the culture of which, beginning at birth,\nwill be maintained by constant exercise of the three classes of duties\nrelative to Self, to the Family, and to Society.\n\nI have already explained the mode in which the principles of universal\nmorality will be finally co-ordinated; a task which, as I have shown,\nis connected with the principal function of the new spiritual power.\nI have now only to point out the paramount influence of morality on\nevery part of Positive Education. It will be seen to be connected at\nfirst spontaneously, and afterwards in a more systematic form, with the\nentire system of human knowledge.\n\nPositive Education, adapting itself to the requirements of the Organism\nwith which it has to deal, subordinates intellectual conditions\nto social. Social conditions are considered as the main object,\nintellectual as but the means of attaining it. Its principal aim is\nto induce the working classes to accept their high social function of\nsupporting the spiritual power, while at the same time it will render\nthem more efficient in their own special duties.\n\n [Education has two stages:\n from birth to puberty, from\n puberty to adolescence.\n The first, consisting of\n physical and esthetic\n training to be given at home]\n\nPresuming that Education extends from birth to manhood, we may divide\nit into two periods, the first ending with puberty, that is, at the\nbeginning of industrial apprenticeship. Education here should be\nessentially spontaneous, and should be carried on as far as possible\nin the bosom of the family. The only studies required should be of\nan esthetic kind. In the second period, Education takes a systematic\nform, consisting chiefly of a public course of scientific lectures,\nexplaining the essential laws of the various orders of phenomena.\nThese lectures will be the groundwork of Moral Science, which will\nco-ordinate the whole, and point out the relation of each part to\nthe social purpose common to all. Thus, at about the time which long\nexperience has fixed as that of legal majority, and when in most\ncases the term of apprenticeship closes, the workman will be prepared\nintellectually and morally for his public and private service.\n\nThe first years of life, from infancy to the end of the period of\nsecond dentition, should be devoted to education of the physical\npowers, carried on under the superintendence of the parents,\nespecially of the mother. Physical education, as usually practised,\nis nothing but mere muscular exercise; but a more important object is\nthat of training the senses, and giving manual skill, so as to develop\nfrom the very first our powers of observation and action. Study, in\nthe ordinary acceptation, there should be none during this period, not\neven reading or writing. An acquaintance with facts of various kinds,\nsuch as may spontaneously attract the growing powers of attention,\nwill be the only instruction received. The philosophic system of the\ninfant individual, like that of the infant species, consists in pure\nFetichism, and its natural development should not be disturbed by\nunwise interference. The only care of the parents will be to impress\nthose feelings and habits for which a rational basis will be given\nat a later period. By taking every opportunity of calling the higher\ninstincts into play, they will be laying down the best foundation for\ntrue morality.\n\nDuring the period of about seven years comprised between the second\ndentition and puberty, Education will become somewhat more systematic;\nbut it will be limited to the culture of the fine arts; and it will\nbe still most important, especially on moral grounds, to avoid\nseparation from the family. The study of Art should simply consist\nin practising it more or less systematically. No formal lectures are\nnecessary, at least for the purposes of general education, though of\ncourse for professional purposes they may still be required. There is\nno reason why these studies should not be carried on at home by the\nsecond generation of Positivists, when the culture of the parents will\nbe sufficiently advanced to allow them to superintend it. They will\ninclude Poetry, the art on which all the rest are based; and the two\nmost important of the special arts, music and drawing. Meantime the\npupil will become familiar with the principal Western languages, which\nare included in the study of Poetry, since modern poetry cannot be\nproperly appreciated without them. Moreover, independently of esthetic\nconsiderations, a knowledge of them is most important morally, as\na means of destroying national prejudices, and of forming the true\nPositivist standard of Occidental feeling. Each nation will be taught\nto consider it a duty to learn the language of contiguous countries; an\nobvious principle, which, in the case of Frenchmen, will involve their\nlearning all the other four languages, as a consequence of that central\nposition which gives them so many advantages. When this rule becomes\ngeneral, and the natural affinities of the five advanced nations are\nbrought fully into play, a common Occidental language will not be long\nin forming itself spontaneously, without the aid of any metaphysical\nscheme for producing a language that shall be absolutely universal.\n\nDuring the latter portion of primary Education, which is devoted to\nthe culture of the imaginative powers, the philosophic development\nof the individual, corresponding to that of the race, will carry\nhim from the simple Fetichism with which he began to the state of\nPolytheism. This resemblance between the growth of the individual and\nthat of society has always shown itself more or less, in spite of the\nirrational precautions of Christian teachers. They have never been\nable to give children a distaste for those simple tales of fairies and\ngenii, which are natural to this phase. The Positivist teacher will\nlet this tendency take its own course. It should not, however, involve\nany hypocrisy on the part of the parents, nor need it lead to any\nsubsequent contradiction. The simple truth is enough. The child may\nbe told that these spontaneous beliefs are but natural to his age, but\nthat they will gradually lead him on to others, by the fundamental law\nof all human development. Language of this kind will not only have the\nadvantage of familiarizing him with a great principle of Positivism,\nbut will stimulate the nascent sense of sociability, by leading him\nto sympathize with the various nations who still remain at his own\nprimitive stage of intellectual development.\n\n [The second part consists\n of public lectures on the\n Sciences, from Mathematics\n to Sociology]\n\nThe second part of Positivist Education cannot be conducted altogether\nat home, since it involves public lectures, in which of course the\npart taken by the parent can only be accessory. But this is no reason\nfor depriving the pupil of the advantages of family life; it remains\nas indispensable as ever to his moral development, which is always to\nbe the first consideration. It will be easy for him to follow the best\nmasters without weakening his sense of personal and domestic morality,\nwhich is the almost inevitable result of the monastic seclusion of\nmodern schools. The public-school system is commonly thought to\ncompensate for these disadvantages, by the knowledge of the world which\nit gives; but this is better obtained by free intercourse with society,\nwhere sympathies are far more likely to be satisfied. Recognition\nof this truth would do much to facilitate and improve popular\neducation; and it applies to all cases, except perhaps to some special\nprofessions, where seclusion of the pupils may still be necessary,\nthough even in these cases probably it may be ultimately dispensed with.\n\nThe plan to be followed in this period of education, will obviously be\nthat indicated by the encyclop\u00e6dic law of Classification, which forms\npart of my Theory of Development. Scientific study, whether for the\nworking man or the philosopher, should begin with the inorganic world\naround us, and then pass to the subject of Man and Society; since our\nideas on these two subjects form the basis of our practical action. The\nfirst class of studies, as I have stated before, includes four sciences\nwhich we may arrange in pairs: Mathematics and Astronomy forming the\nfirst pair; Physics and Chemistry the second. To each of these pairs,\ntwo years may be given. But as the first ranges over a wide field, and\nis of greater logical importance, it will require two lectures weekly;\nwhereas, for all the subsequent studies one lecture will be sufficient.\nBesides, during these two years, the necessities of practical life\nwill not press heavily, and more time may fairly be spent in mental\noccupation. From the study of inorganic science, the pupil will proceed\nto Biology: this subject may easily be condensed in the fifth year\ninto a series of forty lectures, without really losing either its\nphilosophic or its popular character. This concludes the introductory\npart of Education. The student will now co-ordinate all his previous\nknowledge by the direct study of Sociology, statically and dynamically\nviewed. On this subject also forty lectures will be given, in which the\nstructure and growth of human societies, especially those of modern\ntimes, will be clearly explained. With this foundation we come to the\nlast of the seven years of pupillage, in which the great social purpose\nof the scheme is at last reached. It will be devoted to a systematic\nexposition of Moral Science, the principles of which may be now fully\nunderstood by the light of the knowledge previously obtained of the\nWorld, of Life, and of Humanity.\n\nDuring this course of study, part of the three unoccupied months of\neach year will be spent in public examinations, to test the degree to\nwhich the instruction has been assimilated. The pupils will of their\nown accord continue their esthetic pursuits, even supposing their\nnatural tastes in this direction not to be encouraged as they ought to\nbe. During the last two years the Latin and Greek languages might be\nacquired, as an accessory study, which would improve the poetic culture\nof the student, and be useful to him in the historical and moral\nquestions with which he will then be occupied. For the purposes of Art,\nGreek is the more useful of the two; but in the second object, that of\nenabling us to realize our social Filiation, Latin is of even greater\nimportance.\n\nIn the course of these seven years the philosophic development of the\nindividual, preserving its correspondence with that of the race, will\npass through its last phase. As the pupil passed before from Fetichism\nto Polytheism, so he will now pass, as spontaneously, into Monotheism,\ninduced by the influence on his imaginative powers which hitherto have\nbeen supreme, of the spirit of discussion. No interference should be\noffered to this metaphysical transition, which is the homage that he\npays to the necessary conditions under which mankind arrives at truth.\nThere is something in this provisional phase which evidently harmonizes\nwell with the abstract and independent character of Mathematics, with\nwhich the two first years of the seven are occupied. As long as more\nattention is given to deduction than to induction, the mind cannot but\nretain a leaning to metaphysical theories. Under their influence the\nstudent will soon reduce his primitive theology to Deism of a more or\nless distinct kind; and this during his physico-chemical studies will\nmost likely degenerate into a species of Atheism; which last phase,\nunder the enlightening influence of biological and still more of\nsociological knowledge, will be finally replaced by Positivism. Thus at\nthe time fixed for the ultimate study of moral science, each new member\nof Humanity will have been strongly impressed by personal experience,\nwith a sense of historical Filiation, and will be enabled to sympathize\nwith his ancestors and contemporaries, while devoting his practical\nenergies to the good of his successors.\n\n [Travels of Apprentices]\n\nThere is an excellent custom prevalent among the working men of France\nand creditable to their good sense, with which our educational scheme\nseems at first sight incompatible. I refer to the custom of travelling\nfrom place to place during the last years of apprenticeship; which\nis as beneficial to their mind and character, as the purposeless\nexcursions of our wealthy and idle classes are in most cases injurious.\nBut there is no necessity for its interfering with study, since it\nalways involves long residence in the chief centres of production,\nwhere the workman is sure to find annual courses of lectures similar\nto those which he would otherwise have been attending at home.\nAs the structure and distribution of the philosophic body will\nbe everywhere the same, there need be no great inconvenience in\nthese changes. For every centre not more than seven teachers will\nbe required; each of whom will take the whole Encyclop\u00e6dic scale\nsuccessively. Thus the total number of lectures will be so small as\nto admit of a high standard of merit being everywhere attained, and\nof finding everywhere a fair measure of material support. So far from\ndiscouraging the travelling system, Positivism will give it a new\ncharacter, intellectually and socially, by extending the range of\ntravel to the whole of Western Europe, since there is no part of it in\nwhich the workman will not be able to prosecute his education. The\ndifference of language will then be no obstacle. Not only would the\nsense of fraternity among Western nations be strengthened by such a\nplan, but great improvement would result esthetically. The languages\nof Europe would be learnt more thoroughly, and there would be a\nkeener appreciation of works of art, whether musical, pictorial, or\narchitectural; for these can never be properly appreciated but in the\ncountry which gave them birth.\n\n [Concentration of study]\n\nJudging by our present practice, it would seem impossible to include\nsuch a mass of important scientific studies, as are here proposed,\nin three hundred and sixty lectures. But the length to which courses\nof lectures on any subject extend at present, is owing partly to the\nspecial or professional object with which the course is given, and\nstill more to the discursive and unphilosophical spirit of most of the\nteachers, consequent on the miserable manner in which our scientific\nsystem is organized. Such a regeneration of scientific studies as\nPositivism proposes, will animate them with a social spirit, and thus\ngive them a larger and more comprehensive tendency. Teachers will\nbecome more practised in the art of condensing, and their lectures\nwill be far more substantial. They will not indeed be a substitute for\nvoluntary effort, on which all the real value of teaching depends.\nTheir aim will be rather to direct such effort. A striking example,\nwhich is not so well remembered as it should be, will help to explain\nmy meaning. At the first opening of the Polytechnic School, courses of\nlectures were given, very appropriately named _Revolutionary Courses_,\nwhich concentrated the teaching of three years into three months.\nWhat was in that case an extraordinary anomaly, due to republican\nenthusiasm, may become the normal state when a moral power arises\nnot inferior in energy, and yet based upon a consistent intellectual\nsynthesis, of which our great predecessors of the Revolution could have\nno conception.\n\nLittle attention has hitherto been given to the didactic value of\nFeeling. Since the close of the Middle Ages, the heart has been\nneglected in proportion as the mind has been cultivated. But it is\nthe characteristic principle of Positivism, a principle as fertile in\nintellectual as in moral results, that the Intellect, whether we look\nat its natural or at its normal position, is subordinate to Social\nFeeling. Throughout this course of popular education, parents and\nmasters will seize every suitable occasion for calling Social Feeling\ninto play; and the most abstruse subjects will often be vivified by its\ninfluence. The office of the mind is to strengthen and to cultivate the\nheart; the heart again should animate and direct the mental powers.\nThis mutual influence of general views and generous feelings will\nhave greater effect upon scientific study, from the esthetic culture\npreviously given, in which such habits of mind will have been formed,\nas will give grace and beauty to the whole life.\n\n [Governmental assistance not\n required, except for certain\n special institutions, and\n this only as a provisional\n measure]\n\nWhen I speak of this education as specially destined for the people,\nI am not merely using words to denote its comprehensiveness and\nphilosophic character. It is, in my opinion, the only education,\nwith the exception of certain special branches, for which public\norganization is needed. It should be looked on as a sacred debt which\nthe republic owes to the working classes. But the claim does not extend\nto other classes, who can easily pay for any special instruction that\nthey may require. Besides such instruction will be only a partial\ndevelopment of the more general teaching, or an application of it to\nsome particular purpose. Therefore if the general training be sound,\nmost people will be able to prosecute accessory studies by themselves.\nApprenticeship to any business involves very little, except the\npractice of it. Even in the highest arts, no course of systematic\ninstruction is necessary. The false views now prevalent on the subject\nare due to the unfortunate absence of all general education, since\nthe decay of Catholicism. The special institutions founded in Europe\nduring the last three centuries, and carefully remodelled in France\nby the Convention, are only valuable as containing certain germs of\ntruth, which will be found indispensable when general education is\nfinally reorganized. But important as they may be from a scientific\naspect, their practical utility, which seems to have been the motive\nfor establishing them, is exceedingly doubtful. The arts which they\nwere intended to promote could have done perfectly well without them. I\ninclude in these remarks such institutions as the Polytechnic School,\nthe Museum of Natural History, etc. Their value, like that of all\ngood institutions of modern times, is purely provisional. Viewed in\nthis light, it may be worth our while to reorganize them. Positivist\nprinciples, discarding all attempts to make them permanent, will be all\nthe better able to adapt them to their important temporary purpose.\nIndeed there are some new institutions which it might be advisable to\nform; such, for instance, as a School of Comparative Philology, the\nobject of which would be to range all human languages according to\ntheir true affinities. This would compensate the suppression of Greek\nand Latin professorships, which is certainly an indispensable measure.\nBut the whole of this provisional framework would no doubt disappear\nbefore the end of the nineteenth century, when a system of general\neducation will have been thoroughly organized. The present necessity\nfor a provisional system should lead to no misconception of its\ncharacter and purpose. Working men are the only class who have a real\nclaim upon the State for instruction; and this, if wisely organized,\ndispenses with the necessity of special institutions. The adoption of\nthese views would at once facilitate and ennoble popular education.\nNations, provinces, and towns will vie with one another in inviting\nthe best teachers that the spiritual authorities of Western Europe can\nsupply. And every true philosopher will take pride in such teaching,\nwhen it becomes generally understood that the popular character of\nhis lectures implies that they shall be at the same time systematic.\nMembers of the new spiritual power will in most cases regard teaching\nas their principal occupation, for at least a considerable portion of\ntheir public life.\n\n [We are not ripe for this\n system at present; and\n Government must not attempt\n to hasten its introduction]\n\nWhat has been said makes it clear that any organization of such\neducation as this at the present time would be impossible. However\nsincere the intentions of governments to effect this great result\nmight be, any premature attempt to do it would but injure the work,\nespecially if they put in a claim to superintend it. The truth is\nthat a system of education, if it deserve the name, presupposes the\nacceptance of a definite philosophical and social creed to determine\nits character and purpose. Children cannot be brought up in convictions\ncontrary to those of their parents; indeed, the influence of the\nparent is essential to the instructor. Opinions and habits that have\nbeen already formed may subsequently be strengthened by an educational\nsystem; but the carrying out of any such system is impossible,\nuntil the principles of combined action and belief have been well\nestablished. Till then the organization that we propose can only be\neffected in the case of individuals who are ripe for it. Each of\nthese will endeavour to repair the faults and deficiencies of his own\neducation in the best way he can, by the aid of the general doctrine\nwhich he accepts. Assuming that the doctrine is destined to triumph,\nthe number of such minds gradually increases, and they superintend the\nsocial progress of the next generation. This is the natural process,\nand no artificial interference can dispense with it. So far, then, from\ninviting government to organize education, we ought rather to exhort it\nto abdicate the educational powers which it already holds, and which,\nI refer more especially to France, are either useless or a source of\ndiscord. There are only two exceptions to this remark, namely, primary\neducation, and special instruction in certain higher branches. Of these\nI have already spoken. But with these exceptions, it is most desirable\nthat government, whether municipal or central, should surrender its\nunreasonable monopoly, and establish real liberty of teaching; the\ncondition of such liberty being, as I said before, the suppression of\nall annual grants whatsoever for theological or metaphysical purposes.\nUntil some universal faith has been accepted on its own merits, all\nattempts made by Government to reform education must necessarily\nbe reactionary; since they will always be based on some one of the\nretrogressive creeds which it is our object to supersede altogether.\n\nIt is with adults, then, that we must deal. We must endeavour to\ndisseminate systematic convictions among them, and thus open the\ndoor to a real reform of education for the next generation. The\npress and the power of free speech offer many ways of bringing\nabout this result. The most important of these would be a more or\nless connected series of popular lectures on the various positive\nsciences, including history, which may now be ranked among them. Now\nfor these lectures to produce their full effect, they must even when\ntreating of the most elementary point in mathematics, be thoroughly\nphilosophic and consequently animated by a social spirit. They must\nbe entirely independent of government, so as not to be hampered by\nany of the authorized views. Lastly, there is a condition in which\nall the rest are summed up. These lectures should be Occidental, not\nsimply National. What we require is a free association of philosophers\nthroughout Western Europe, formed by the voluntary co-operation of all\nwho can contribute efficiently to this great preliminary work; their\nservices being essentially gratuitous. It is a result which no system\nbut Positivism is capable of effecting. By its agency that coalition\nbetween philosophers and the working classes, on which so much depends,\nwill speedily be established.\n\nWhile the work of propagating Positivist convictions is going on in the\nfree and unrestricted manner here described, the spiritual authority\nwill at the same time be forming itself, and will be prepared to make\nuse of these convictions as the basis for social regeneration. Thus\nthe transitional state will be brought as nearly as possible into\nharmony with the normal state; and this the more in proportion as the\nnatural affinity between philosophers and workmen is brought out more\ndistinctly. The connexion between Positivist lectures and Positivist\nclubs will illustrate my meaning. While the lectures prepare the\nway for the Future, the clubs work in the same direction by judging\nthe Past, and advising for the Present; so that we have at once a\nbeginning of the three essential functions of the new spiritual power.\n\nWe have now a clear conception of popular education in its provisional,\nand in its normal state. Long before the normal state can be realized,\nthe mutual action of philosophers and workmen will have done great\nservice to both. Meeting with such powerful support from the people,\nthe rising spiritual power will win the respect if not the affection\nof their rulers, even of those among them who are now the most\ncontemptuous of every influence but that of material power. Their\nexcess of pride will often be so far humbled that they will invite\nits mediation in cases where the people have been roused to just\nindignation. The force of numbers seems at first so violent as to carry\nall before it; but in the end it usually proves far inferior to that\nof wealth. It cannot exist for any length of time without complete\nconvergence of opinion and feeling. Hence, a spiritual power has very\ngreat weight in controlling or directing its action. Philosophers will\nnever, indeed, be able to manage the working classes as they please,\nas some unprincipled agitators have imagined; but when they exercise\ntheir authority rightly, whether it be in the cause of Order or that\nof Progress, they will have great power over their passions and\nconduct. Such influence can only spring from long cherished feelings\nof gratitude and trust, due not merely to presumed capacity but to\nservices actually rendered. No one is a fit representative of his own\nclaims; but the philosopher may honourably represent the cause of\nworking men before the governing classes; and the people will in their\nturn compel their rulers to respect the new spiritual power. By this\nhabitual exchange of services the aspirations of the people will be\nkept clear of all subversive tendencies, and philosophers will be led\nto abandon the folly of seeking political power. Neither class will\ndegrade itself by making its own interest the chief consideration: each\nwill find its own reward in keeping to the nobler course of its own\nsocial duty.\n\n [Intellectual attitude of\n the people. Emancipation\n from theological belief]\n\nTo complete this view of the political attitude which Positivism\nrecommends to the working class, I have now to speak of the\nintellectual and moral conditions which that attitude requires, and on\nwhich the character of their spiritual leaders depends. What is wanted\nis only a more perfect development of tendencies which already exist in\nthe people, and which have already shown themselves strong in Paris,\nthe centre of the great Western movement.\n\nIntellectually the principal conditions are two; Emancipation from\nobsolete beliefs, and a sufficient amount of mental culture.\n\nThe emancipation of the working classes from theology is complete, at\nleast in Paris. In no other class has it so entirely lost its power.\nThe shallow deism, which satisfies so many of our literary men, finds\nlittle favour with the people. They are happily unversed in studies\nof words and abstractions, without which this last stage in the\nprocess of emancipation speedily comes to an end. We only require a\nstronger expression of popular feeling on this point, so as to avoid\nall deception and false statement as to the intellectual character of\nthe reorganization that is going on. And the freedom that we are now\nenjoying will admit of these feelings being unmistakably manifested,\nespecially now that they have the new philosophy for their exponent.\nA distinct declaration of opinion on this subject is urgently needed\non social grounds. That hypocritical affectation of theological belief\nagainst which we have to fight, is designed to prevent, or at least\nhas the effect of preventing, the just enforcement of popular claims.\nThese unscrupulous attempts to mystify the people involve their mental\nsubjection. The result is, that their legitimate aspirations for real\nprogress are evaded, by diverting their thoughts towards an imaginary\nfuture state. It is for the working classes themselves to break\nthrough this concerted scheme, which is even more contemptible than\nit is odious. They have only to declare without disguise what their\nintellectual position really is; and to do this so emphatically as\nto make any mistake on the part of the governing classes impossible.\nThey will consequently reject all teachers who are insufficiently\nemancipated, or who in any way support the system of theological\nhypocrisy, which, from Robespierre downwards, has been the refuge of\nall reactionists, whether democrat or royalist. But there are teachers\nof another kind, who sincerely maintain that our life here on earth is\na temporary banishment, and that we ought to take as little interest\nin it as possible. A prompt answer may be given to such instructors\nas these. They should be requested to follow out their principle\nconsistently, and to cease to interfere in the management of a world\nwhich is so alien to what, in their ideas, is the sole aim of life.\n\n [From metaphysical doctrines]\n\nMetaphysical principles have more hold on our working classes than\ntheological; yet their abandonment is equally necessary. The subtle\nextravagances by which the German mind has been so confused, find,\nit is true, little favour in Catholic countries. But even in Paris\nthe people retains a prejudice in favour of metaphysical instruction,\nthough happily it has not been able to obtain it. It is most desirable\nthat this last illusion of our working classes should be dissipated,\nas it forms the one great obstacle to their social action. One\nreason for it is that they fall into the common error of confounding\nknowledge with intelligence, and imagine in their modesty that none\nbut instructed men are capable of governing. Now this error, natural\nas it is, often leads them to choose incompetent leaders. A truer\nestimate of modern society would teach them that it is not among our\nliterary, or even our scientific men, proud as they may be of their\nattainments, that the largest number of really powerful intellects are\nto be found. There are more of them among the despised practical class,\nand even amongst the most uninstructed working men. In the Middle Ages\nthis truth was better known than it is now. Education was thought more\nof than instruction. A knight would be appreciated for his sagacity\nand penetration, and appointed to important posts, though he might be\nextremely ignorant. Clear-sightedness, wisdom, and even consistency of\nthought, are qualities which are very independent of learning; and, as\nmatters now stand, they are far better cultivated in practical life\nthan in scholastic study. In breadth of view, which lies at the root\nof all political capacity, our literary classes have certainly shown\nthemselves far below the average.\n\n [Their mistaken preference\n of literary and rhetorical\n talent to real intellectual\n power]\n\nAnd now we come to another and a deeper reason for the prejudice of\nwhich I am speaking. It is that they make no distinction between\none kind of instruction and another. The unfortunate confidence\nwhich they still bestow on literary men and lawyers shows that the\nprestige of pedantry lingers among them longer than the prestige of\ntheology or monarchy. But all this will soon be altered under the\ninfluence of republican government, and the strong discipline of a\nsound philosophical system. Popular instinct will soon discover that\nconstant practice of the faculty of expression, whether in speech or\nin writing, is no guarantee for real power of thought; indeed that it\nhas a tendency to incapacitate men from forming a clear and decided\njudgment on any question. The instruction which such men receive is\nutterly deficient in solid principles, and it almost always either\npresupposes or causes a total absence of fixed convictions. Most minds\nthus trained, while skilled in putting other men\u2019s thoughts into shape,\nbecome incapable of distinguishing true from false in the commonest\nsubjects, even when their own interest requires it. The people must\ngive up the feeling of blind respect which leads them to intrust such\nmen with their higher interests. Reverence for superiors is doubtless\nindispensable to a well-ordered state; only it needs to be better\nguided than it is now.\n\nWhat then, working men may ask, is the proper training for themselves,\nand consequently for those who claim to guide them? The answer is,\nsystematic cultivation of the Positive spirit. It is already called\ninto exercise by their daily occupations; and all that is wanted is\nto strengthen it by a course of scientific study. Their daily work\ninvolves a rudimentary application of the Positive method: it turns\ntheir attention to many most important natural laws. In fact, the\nworkmen of Paris, whom I take as the best type of their class, have\na clearer sense of that union of reality with utility by which the\nPositive spirit is characterized, than most of our scientific men.\nThe speciality of their employment is no doubt disadvantageous with\nrespect to breadth and coherence of ideas. But it leaves the mind\nfree from responsibility, and this is the most favourable condition\nfor developing these qualities to which all vigorous intellects are\nnaturally disposed. But nothing will so strongly impress on the\npeople the importance of extending and organizing their scientific\nknowledge, as their interest in social questions. Their determination\nto rectify a faulty condition of society will suggest to them that\nthey must first know what the laws of Social life really are;\nknowledge which is obviously necessary in every other subject. They\nwill then feel how impossible it is to understand the present state\nof society, without understanding its relation on the one hand with\nthe Past, and on the other with the Future. Their desire to modify\nthe natural course of social phenomena will make them anxious to know\nthe antecedents and consequences of these phenomena, so as to avoid\nall mischievous or useless interference. They will thus discover\nthat Political Art is even more dependent than other arts, upon\nits corresponding Science. And then they will soon see that this\nscience is no isolated department of knowledge, but that it involves\npreliminary study of Man and of the World. In this way they will pass\ndownwards through the hierarchic scale of Positive conceptions, until\nthey come back to the inorganic world, the sphere more immediately\nconnected with their own special avocations. And thus they will reach\nthe conclusion that Positivism is the only system which can satisfy\neither the intellectual or material wants of the people, since its\nsubject-matter and its objects are identical with their own, and since,\nlike themselves, it subordinates everything to social considerations.\nAll that it claims is to present in a systematic form principles which\nthey already hold instinctively. By co-ordinating these principles of\nmorality and good sense, their value, whether in public or in private\nquestions, is largely increased; and the union of the two forms of\nwisdom, theoretical and practical wisdom, is permanently secured.\nWhen all this is understood, the people will feel some shame at\nhaving entrusted questions of the greatest complexity to minds that\nhave never quite comprehended the difference between a cubic inch\nand a cubic foot. As to men of science, in the common acceptation of\nthe word, who are so respected by the middle classes, we need not\nbe afraid of their gaining much influence with the people. They are\nalienated from them by their utter indifference to social questions;\nand before these their learned puerilities fade into insignificance.\nAbsorbed in the details of their own special science, they are quite\nincapable of satisfying unsophisticated minds. What the people want is\nto have clear conceptions on all subjects, _des clart\u00e9s de tout_, as\nMoli\u00e8re has it. Whenever the savants of our time are drawn by their\nfoolish ambition into politics, ordinary men find to their surprise\nthat, except in a few questions of limited extent and importance,\ntheir minds have become thoroughly narrow under the influence of the\nspecializing system of which they are so proud. Positivism explains\nthe mystery, by showing that, since the necessity for the specializing\nsystem now no longer exists, it naturally results if prolonged, in a\nsort of academic idiocy. During the last three centuries it did real\nservice to society, by laying down the scientific groundwork for the\nrenovation of Philosophy projected by Bacon and Descartes. But as soon\nas the groundwork was sufficiently finished to admit of the formation\nof true Science, that is, of Science viewed relatively to Humanity,\nthe specializing method became retrograde. It ceased to be of any\nassistance to the modern spirit; and indeed it is now, especially in\nFrance, a serious obstacle to its diffusion and systematic working.\nThe wise revolutionists of the Convention were well aware of this\nwhen they took the bold step of suppressing the Academy of Sciences.\nThe beneficial results of this statesman-like policy will soon be\nappreciated by our workmen. The danger lest, in withdrawing their\nconfidence from metaphysicians or literary men, they should fall into\nthe bad scientific spirit, is not therefore very great. With the social\naims which they have in view, they cannot but see that generality in\ntheir conceptions is as necessary as positivity. The Capitalist class\nby which industry is directed, being more concentrated on special\nobjects, will always look on men of pure science with more respect.\nBut the people will be drawn by their political leanings towards\nphilosophers in the true sense of that word. The number of such men is\nbut very small at present; but it will soon increase at the call of the\nworking classes, and will indeed be recruited from their ranks.\n\n [Moral attitude of the\n people. The workman should\n regard himself as a public\n functionary]\n\nThis, then, should be the attitude of the working class,\nintellectually. Morally, what is required is, that they should have\na sufficient sense of the dignity of labour, and that they should be\nprepared for the mission that now lies before them.\n\nThe workman must learn to look upon himself, morally, as a public\nservant, with functions of a special and also of a general kind. Not\nthat he is to receive his wages for the future from the State instead\nof from a private hand. The present plan is perfectly well adapted to\nall services which are so direct and definite, that a common standard\nof value can be at once applied to them. Only let it be understood\nthat the service is not sufficiently recompensed, without the social\nfeeling of gratitude towards the agent that performs it. In what are\ncalled liberal professions, this feeling already obtains. The client or\npatient is not dispensed from gratitude by payment of his fee. In this\nrespect the republican instincts of the Convention have anticipated the\nteaching of philosophy. They valued the workman\u2019s labour at its true\nworth. Workmen have only to imagine labour suppressed or even suspended\nin the trade to which they may belong, to see its importance to the\nwhole fabric of modern society. Their general function as a class, the\nfunction of forming public opinion, and of supporting the action of\nthe spiritual power, it is of course less easy for them to understand\nat present. But, as I have already shown, it follows so naturally\nfrom their character and position, and corresponds so perfectly with\ntheir requirements as a class, that they cannot fail to appreciate\nits importance, when the course of events allows, or rather compels\nthem to bring it into play. The only danger lies in their insisting\non the possession of what metaphysicians call political rights, and\nin engaging in useless discussions about the distribution of power,\ninstead of fixing their attention on the manner in which it is used. Of\nthis, however, there is no great fear, at all events in France, where\nthe metaphysical theory of Right has never reached so fanatical a pitch\nwith the working classes as elsewhere. Ideologists may blame them, and\nmay use their official influence as they will; but the people have too\nmuch good sense to be permanently misled as to their true function in\nsociety. Deluged as they have been with electoral votes, they will soon\nvoluntarily abandon this useless qualification, which now has not even\nthe charm of a privilege. Questions of pure politics have ceased to\ninterest the people; their attention is fixed, and will remain fixed,\non social questions, which are to be solved for the most part through\nmoral agencies. That substitutions of one person or party for another,\nor that mere modifications of any kind in the administration should be\nlooked on as the final issue of the great Revolution, is a result in\nwhich they will never acquiesce.\n\nAnd if this is to be the attitude of the people, it must be the\nattitude no less of those who seek to gain their confidence. With\nthem, as with the people, political questions should be subordinate\nto social questions; and with them the conviction should be even more\ndistinct, that the solution of social problems depends essentially\non moral agencies. They must, in fact, accept the great principle of\nseparation of spiritual from temporal power, as the basis on which\nmodern society is to be prominently organized. So entirely does the\nprinciple meet the wants of the people, that they will soon insist\non its adoption by their teachers. They will accept none who do not\nformally abandon any prospects they may have of temporal power,\nparliamentary as well as administrative. And by thus dedicating their\nlives without reservation to the priesthood of Humanity, they will gain\nconfidence, not merely from the people, but from the governing classes.\nGovernments will offer no impediment to social speculations which do\nnot profess to be susceptible of immediate application; and thus the\nnormal state may be prepared for in the future without disturbance,\nand yet without neglecting the present. Practical statesmen meanwhile,\nno longer interfered with by pretentious sophists, will give up their\nretrograde tendencies, and will gradually adapt their policy to the new\nideas current in the public mind, while discharging the indispensable\nfunction of maintaining material order.\n\n [Ambition of power and\n wealth must be abandoned]\n\nFor the people to rise to the true level of their position, they have\nonly to develop and cultivate certain dispositions which already\nexist in them spontaneously. And the most important of these is,\nabsence of ambition for wealth or rank. Political metaphysicians\nwould say that the sole object of the Great Revolution was to give\nthe working classes easier access to political and civil power. But\nthis, though it should always be open to them, is very far from\nmeeting their true wants. Individuals among them may be benefited by\nit, but the mass is left unaffected, or rather is placed often in\na worse position, by the desertion of the more energetic members.\nThe Convention is the only government by which this result has been\nproperly appreciated. It is the only government which has shown due\nconsideration for working men as such; which has recognized the value\nof their services, and encouraged what is the chief compensation for\ntheir condition of poverty, their participation in public life. All\nsubsequent governments, whether retrograde or constitutional, have, on\nthe contrary, done all they could to divert the people from their true\nsocial function, by affording opportunity for individuals among them\nto rise to higher positions. The monied classes, under the influence\nof blind routine, have lent their aid to this degrading policy, by\ncontinually preaching to the people the necessity of saving; a precept\nwhich is indeed incumbent on their own class, but not on others.\nWithout saving, capital could not be accumulated and administered; it\nis therefore of the highest importance that the monied classes should\nbe as economical as possible. But in other classes, and especially in\nthose dependent on fixed wages, parsimonious habits are uncalled for\nand injurious; they lower the character of the labourer, while they\ndo little or nothing to improve his physical condition; and neither\nthe working classes nor their teachers should encourage them. Both\nthe one and the other will find their truest happiness in keeping\nclear of all serious practical responsibility, and in allowing free\nplay to their mental and moral faculties in public as well as private\nlife. In spite of the Economists, savings-banks are regarded by the\nworking classes with unmistakable repugnance. And the repugnance is\njustifiable; they do harm morally, by checking the exercise of generous\nfeelings. Again, it is the fashion to declaim against wine-shops; and\nyet after all they are at present the only places where the people can\nenjoy society. Social instincts are cultivated there which deserve our\napproval far more than the self-helping spirit which carries men to\nthe savings-bank. No doubt this unconcern for money, wise as it is,\ninvolves real personal risk; but it is a danger which civilization is\nconstantly tending to diminish, without effacing qualities which do\nthe workman honour, and which are the source of his most cherished\npleasures. The danger ceases when the mental and moral faculties\nare called into stronger exercise. The interest which Positivism\nwill arouse among the people in public questions, will lead to the\nsubstitution of the club for the wine-shop. In these questions, the\ngenerous inspirations of popular instinct hold out a model which\nphilosophers will do well to follow themselves. Fondness for money is\nas much a disqualification for the spiritual government of Humanity, as\npolitical ambition. It is a clear proof of moral incompetence, which is\ngenerally connected in one way or other with intellectual feebleness.\n\nOne of the principal results of the spiritual power exercised by\nphilosophers and the working classes under the Positivist system, will\nbe to compensate by a just distribution of blame and praise for the\nimperfect arrangements of social rank, in which wealth must always\npreponderate. Leaving the present subordination of offices untouched,\neach functionary will be judged by the intrinsic worth of his mind and\nheart, without servility and yet without any encouragement to anarchy.\nIt must always be obvious that the political importance which high\nposition gives, is out of all proportion to the real merit implied\nin gaining that position. The people will come to see more and more\nclearly that real happiness, so far from depending on rank, is far more\ncompatible with their own humble station. Exceptional men no doubt\nthere are, whose character impels them to seek power; a character\nmore dangerous than useful, unless there be sufficient wisdom in the\nsocial body to turn it to good account. The best workmen, like the\nbest philosophers, will soon cease to feel envy for greatness, laden,\nas it always must be, with heavy responsibilities. At present, the\ncompensation which I hold out to them has not been realized; but when\nit exists, the people will feel that their spiritual and temporal\nleaders are combining all the energies of society for the satisfaction\nof their wants. Recognizing this, they will care but little for fame\nthat must be bought by long and tedious meditation, or for power\nburdened with constant care. There are men whose talents call them to\nthese important duties, and they will be left free to perform them;\nbut the great mass of society will be well satisfied that their own\nlot is one far more in keeping with the constitution of our nature;\nmore compatible with that harmonious exercise of the faculties of\nThought, Feeling, and Action, which is most conducive to happiness.\nThe immediate pressure of poverty once removed, the highest reward of\nhonourable conduct will be found in the permanent esteem, posthumous as\nit may be sometimes, of that portion of Humanity which has witnessed\nit. In a word the title, _servus servorum_, which is still retained by\nthe Papacy from false humility, but which originated in anticipation of\na social truth, is applicable to all functionaries in high position.\nThey may be described as the involuntary servants of voluntary\nsubordinates. It is not chimerical to conceive Positivist society\nso organized that its theoretical and practical directors, with all\ntheir personal advantages, will often regret that they were not born,\nor that they did not remain, in the condition of workmen. The only\nsolid satisfaction which great minds have hitherto found in political\nor spiritual power has been that, being more occupied with public\ninterests, they had a wider scope for the exercise of social feeling.\nBut the excellence of the future condition of society will be, that the\npossibility of combining public and private life will be open to all.\nThe humblest citizen will be able to influence not by command but by\ncounsel, in proportion to his energy and worth.\n\nAll the views brought forward in this chapter bear out the statement\nwith which it began, that the Proletariate forms the principal basis\nof the social system, not merely as finally constituted, but in its\npresent state of transition; and admitting this, the present state will\nbe seen to have no essential difference from the normal future to which\nit tends. The principal conditions of our transitional policy were\ndescribed at the conclusion of the last chapter. The security for these\nconditions is to be found in the natural tendencies of the people of\nWestern Europe, and especially of France. Our governors will do well to\nfollow these tendencies instead of attempting to lead them; for they\nare in perfect keeping with the two great requirements of the present\ntime, Liberty and Public Order.\n\n [The working classes are the\n best guarantee for Liberty\n and for Order]\n\nLiberty of thought and speech is enjoyed in France, and especially in\nParis, to an extent impossible in any other country, and it is due\nprincipally to the intellectual emancipation of our workmen. They have\nrid themselves of theology in all its forms, and yet have not accepted\nany metaphysical system. At the same time, though totally devoid at\npresent of systematic convictions, there is in them a submissiveness of\nmind which predisposes them to receive convictions combining reality\nwith utility. In all other classes there is a tendency to use forcible\nmeasures in spreading their doctrines when discussion fails. It is\nonly to the people that philosophers can look for the support and\nextension of Liberty, which is so essential to their objects; and from\nthis they derive moral confidence far more reassuring than any legal\nsecurity. However reactionary or stationary the views of particular\nleaders or sects may be, with such a population as that of Paris, no\nreal oppression is possible. Of all the claims which France has to the\nleadership of Europe, this is the strongest. The resistance which is\nstill offered to freedom of association and freedom of education will\nsoon be overcome by the force of its liberal sympathies. A population\nof such strong social feeling as ours will certainly not allow itself\nto be permanently deprived of the power of meeting together freely\nin clubs; institutions most conducive both to its culture and to\nthe protection of its interests. It will insist with equal force\nupon perfect liberty of teaching, feeling deeply the need of solid\ninstruction, and the incapacity of metaphysicians and theologians\nto give it. Without popular pressure, the essential conditions of\neducational liberty will always be evaded.\n\nAnd if Liberty depends upon popular support, Public Order, whether\nat home or abroad, depends upon it no less. The inclinations of the\nworking classes are altogether on the side of peace. Their strong\ndislike of war is the principal reason of the present remarkable\ntranquillity of Europe. The foolish regret expressed by all the\nretrograde parties for the decline of the military spirit is a\nsufficient indication of what the popular feeling is; but even more\nsignificant is the necessity for compulsory enlistment, which began\nin France and has extended to other parts of Europe. There has been\nmuch factitious indignation on the subject, but at least it must be\nallowed, that in our armies the officers are the only volunteers.\nAgain, the working class is more free than any other from international\nprejudices, which still disunite the great family of Western nations,\nalthough they are very much weaker than formerly. They are strongest in\nthe middle classes, a fact principally due to industrial competition.\nBut working men feel how similar their wants and their conditions\nare in all countries, and this feeling checks their animosity. And\nthe consciousness of union will become far stronger, now that the\ngreat social problem of their incorporation into modern society is\nbeing raised everywhere. No errors that statesmen can commit, whether\nin matters of war or peace, can prevent this from becoming the\npreponderating question in every European country; and thus it tends to\npreserve their mutual concord.\n\nPopular sympathies of this sort are, it may be said, less conducive\nto internal tranquillity than to pacific foreign relations. But the\nalarm which is naturally aroused by the spiritual anarchy around us\nmust not blind us to the real guarantees for Order which popular\ntendencies, rightly interpreted, hold out. It is to the people that\nwe must look for the ascendancy of central over local power, which,\nas we have seen, is so indispensable to public order. The executive\nauthority, provided only that it gives no cause to fear reaction, will\nalways have their support when opposed by an assembly the prevalent\ntendencies of which will usually be adverse to their interests. They\nwill always turn instinctively to the dictatorial rather than to the\nparliamentary branch of the administration; feeling that from its\npractical character and the directness of its action, it is more likely\nto meet their wants. Useless discussions on constitutional questions\nmay suit ambitious members of the middle classes, by facilitating their\narrival to power. But the people take very little interest in all this\nunmeaning agitation, and often treat it with merited contempt. They\nknow that it can be of no use to them, and that its only result is\nto evade their real wants by undermining the only authority that can\ndo them justice. Consequently the people are certain to give their\nsupport to every government that deserves it; especially in France,\nwhere political passions have already yielded to the superior and more\npermanent interest of social questions. And while strengthening the\ngovernment they may do much to elevate its character; by confining\nit strictly to its practical function, and resisting any attempts\nthat it may make to interfere with opinion. In all these respects\nthe spontaneous influence of the working classes will be of material\nassistance in carrying out the systematic conceptions of social\nphilosophy.\n\n [It is from them that we\n shall obtain the dictatorial\n power which is provisionally\n required]\n\nBut a more striking proof of the political influence to be exercised\nby the people is this. The dictatorship which our transitional policy\nrequires as long as the spiritual interregnum lasts must arise in the\nfirst instance from their ranks.\n\nIn the word _People_, especially in the French language, there is a\nfortunate ambiguity, which may serve to remind us that the proletariate\nclass is not, properly speaking, a class at all, but constitutes the\nbody of society. From it proceed the various special classes, which we\nmay regard as organs necessary to that body. Since the abolition of\nroyalty, the last remnant of caste, our political leaders have been\nrecruited, and will continue to be so, from the working class. In the\nnormal state, however, it will be required as a preliminary condition,\nthat the holder of dictatorial power shall have first received the\npolitical training which is given by the exercise of authority in his\nown business. In a settled state of society, Government, strictly so\ncalled, is a mere extension of civil influence. Ultimately, therefore,\npolitical power will fall into the hands of the great leaders of\nindustry. As spiritual reorganization proceeds, they will gradually\nbecome more worthy of it than they are at present. Besides, the tenure\nof power will become less burdensome, because it will be confined to\nduties of a purely practical kind.\n\nAs yet, however, the case is very different; and therefore the\nwealthy, though ultimately they will be the administrators of power,\nare not those to whom it should as a rule be entrusted in our present\ncondition. Special departments may be given to them with advantage, as\nwe have seen proved recently, and that in cases where the functions to\nbe performed had no relation whatever to industrial skill. But they\nare not competent as yet for dictatorial power, the power which has to\nsupply the place of royalty. Individual exceptions, of course, there\nmay be, though none have appeared hitherto, and at least they are\nnot enough for our provisional system to rely on. As yet the wealthy\nclasses have shown themselves too debased in thought and feeling for\nan office of such importance. Nor do we find greater aptitude for\nit outside the industrial class. Scientific men are most assuredly\nunfit for it, especially in France, where the system of Academies has\nnarrowed the mind, withered the feelings, and enervated the character\nto such an extent, that most of them fail in the conduct of common\nlife, and are utterly unworthy of the smallest post of authority, even\nin their own department.\n\nAll other classes failing us, we have to look to the working class,\nwhich has been left more free to form broad views, and in which the\nsense of duty has been better cultivated. On historical grounds I\nfeel convinced that the workmen of France are more likely than any\nother class to supply men competent for supreme power, as long as the\nspiritual interregnum lasts; that is, for at least one generation.\n\nOn looking at this question calmly and without scholastic or\naristocratic prejudice, it will be seen, as I pointed out at the\nbeginning of this chapter, that the working class is better situated\nthan any other with respect to generality of views and generosity of\nfeeling. In knowledge and experience of administration they would\nordinarily be deficient; they would therefore not be fit for the\nwork of any special department. But this is no disqualification for\nthe supreme power, or indeed for any of the higher offices for which\nbreadth of view rather than special knowledge is required. These may be\nfilled by working men, whose good sense and modesty will at once lead\nthem to choose their agents for special departments from the classes\nwho have usually furnished them before. The practical character and\nprogressive spirit of such a government being beyond suspicion, special\ntalent of whatever kind may be made available, even in the case of men\nwho, if they had been placed in a higher position, would have proved\nthoroughly hostile to republican institutions. Of all the diversified\nelements of modern society, there is not one which may not be of real\nservice in assisting the transition. Among soldiers and magistrates,\nfor instance, there are many who will join the popular movement, and\nbecome sincere supporters of republicanism. A government of this kind\nwould tranquillize the people, would obviate the necessity for violent\ncompressive measures, and would at the same time have a most beneficial\ninfluence on the capitalist class. It would show them the necessity of\nattaining to greater purity of feeling and greater breadth of view, if\nthey are to become worthy of the position for which they are ultimately\ndestined.\n\nThus, whether we look at the interests of Public Order, or at those\nof Liberty, it appears necessary as a provisional measure, during\nthe continuance of our spiritual interregnum, that the holders\nof dictatorial power shall be chosen from the working class. The\nsuccess of a few working men in the pursuit of wealth has exercised\nan unsettling influence on the rest; but in the present instance we\nneed not fear this result. It will be obvious that the career of a\nproletary governor is a rare exception, and one which requires peculiar\nendowments.\n\nIn examining the mode in which this anomalous policy should be carried\nout, we must bear in mind the object with which it was instituted.\nIt is most important to get rid of the custom, based on motives\nof self-interest, which has grown up during the last generation,\nof insisting on parliamentary experience as an apprenticeship for\nexecutive power; executive power being always the real object of\nambition. We have found from experience what we might have anticipated\non theoretical grounds, that this plan excludes all except mere\ntalkers of the Girondin type, men totally devoid of statesman-like\nqualities. To working men it offers almost insurmountable obstacles;\nand even supposing these obstacles to be overcome, we may be sure\nthat they would lose the straightforwardness and native vigour which\nconstitute their best claim to the exceptional position proposed for\nthem.\n\nIt is best, then, that they should reach the position assigned to them\nat once, without the circuitous process of a parliamentary career.\nOur transition towards the normal state will then exhibit its true\ncharacter. It will be tranquil and yet decisive; for it will rest on\nthe combined action of philosophers without political ambition, and\ndictators adverse to spiritual encroachment. The teacher who attempts\nto govern, the governor who attempts to educate, will both incur severe\npublic censure, as enemies alike of peace and progress. The whole\nresult will be a change in our revolutionary condition identical with\nthat which the Convention would have realized, if, as its founders\ncontemplated, it had lasted till the Peace.\n\nSuch, then, is the nature of the compact into which all true\nphilosophers should enter with the leading members of the proletary\nclass. Their object is to direct the organic and final phase through\nwhich the Great Revolution is now passing. What they have to do is\ncarefully to prolong the provisional system adopted by the Convention,\nand to ignore, as far as possible, the traditions of all succeeding\ngovernments, whether stationary or retrograde. Comprehensiveness of\nview and social sympathy predominate alike in both members of this\ngreat alliance; and it is thus a guarantee for our present state of\ntransition, and a sure earnest of the normal future. The people are\nthe spontaneous representatives of this alliance; the philosophers\nits systematic organ. The intellectual deficiencies of the former will\neasily be remedied by philosophers, who will show them how essential\nit is on social grounds that they should understand the true meaning\nof history; since otherwise their conception of the union of mankind\nmust be limited to the present generation, ignoring the more important\ntruth of the continuity of the Present with the Past and the Future. A\nfar greater obstacle is the moral deficiency of most philosophers of\nour time. But the wholesome influence of the people upon them, combined\nwith a deep philosophic conviction of the preponderance of Feeling\nin every subject of thought, will do much to overcome the ambitious\ninstincts which weaken and distract their energies in the common cause\nof social renovation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF POSITIVISM UPON WOMEN\n\n\n [Women represent the\n affective element in our\n nature, as philosophers\n and people represent the\n intellectual and practical\n elements]\n\nIn their action, then, upon society, philosophers may hope for the\nenergetic support of the working classes. But the regenerating movement\nrequires still the co-operation of a third element, an element\nindicated by our analysis of human nature, and suggested also by\nhistorical study of the great crisis of modern times.\n\nThe moral constitution of man consists of something more than Intellect\nand Activity. These are represented in the constitution of society by\nthe philosophic body and the proletariate. But besides these there is\nFeeling, which, in the theory put forward in the first chapter of this\nwork, was shown to be the predominating principle, the motive power\nof our being, the only basis on which the various parts of our nature\ncan be brought into unity. Now the alliance between philosophers and\nworking men, which has been just described, however perfectly it may\nbe realized, does not represent the element of Feeling with sufficient\ndistinctness and prominence.\n\nCertainly without Social Feeling, neither philosophers nor proletaries\ncan exercise any real influence. But in their case its source is not\nsufficiently pure nor deep to sustain them in the performance of their\nduty. A more spontaneous and more perennial spring of inspiration must\nbe found.\n\nWith the philosopher social sympathies will never be wanting in\ncoherence, since they will be connected with his whole system of\nthought; but this very scientific character will deaden their vigour,\nunless they are revived by impulses in which reflection has no share.\nRoused as he will be by the consciousness of public duty to a degree\nof activity of which abstract thinkers can form no conception, the\nemotions of private life will yet be not less necessary for him than\nfor others. Intercourse with the working classes will be of the\ngreatest benefit to him; but even this is not enough to compensate the\ndefects of a life devoted to speculation.\n\nThe sympathies of the people again, though stronger and more\nspontaneous than those of the philosopher, are, in most cases, less\npure and not so lasting. From the pressure of daily necessities it is\ndifficult for them to maintain the same consistent and disinterested\ncharacter. Great as are the moral advantages which will result from\nthe incorporation of the people in modern society, they are not enough\nby themselves to outweigh the force of self-interest aroused by the\nprecarious nature of their position. Emotions of a gentler and less\ntransient kind must be called into play. Philosophers may relieve the\nworking classes from the necessity of pressing their own claims and\ngrievances; but the fact still remains, that the instincts by which\nthose claims are prompted are personal rather than social.\n\nThus, in the alliance which has been here proposed as necessary\nfor social reorganization, Feeling, the most influential part of\nhuman nature, has not been adequately represented. An element is\nwanting which shall have the same relation to the moral side of our\nconstitution, as the philosophic body has with Intellect, and the\npeople with Activity. On this, as well as on other grounds, it is\nindispensable that Women be associated in the work of regeneration\nas soon as its tendencies and conditions can be explained to them.\nWith the addition of this third element, the constructive movement at\nlast assumes its true character. We may then feel confident that our\nintellectual and practical faculties will be kept in due subordination\nto universal Love. The digressions of intellect, and the subversive\ntendencies of our active powers will be as far as possible prevented.\n\n [Women have stood aloof from\n the modern movement, because\n of its anti-historic and\n destructive character]\n\nIndispensable to Positivism as the co-operation of women is, it\ninvolves one essential condition. Modern progress must rise above its\npresent imperfect character, before women can thoroughly sympathize\nwith it.\n\nAt present the general feeling amongst them is antipathy to the\nRevolution. They dislike the destructive character which the Revolution\nnecessarily exhibited in its first phase. All their social sympathies\nare given to the Middle Ages. And this is not merely due, as is\nsupposed, to the regret which they very naturally feel for the decline\nof chivalry, although they cannot but feel that the Middle Ages are\nthe only period in which the feeling of reverence for women has been\nproperly cultivated. But the real ground of their predilection is\ndeeper and less interested. It is that, being morally the purest\nportion of Humanity, they venerate Catholicism, as the only system\nwhich has upheld the principle of subordinating Politics to Morals.\nThis, I cannot doubt, is the secret cause of most of the regret with\nwhich women still regard the irrevocable decay of mediaeval society.\n\nThey do not disregard the progress which modern times have made in\nvarious special directions. But our erroneous tendencies towards\nbringing back the old supremacy of Politics over Morality, are, in\ntheir eyes, a retrograde movement so comprehensive in its character\nthat no partial improvements can compensate for it. True, we are\nable to justify this deviation provisionally, since the decay of\nCatholicism renders political dictatorship necessary. But women, having\ncomparatively little to do with the practical business of life, can\nhardly appreciate this necessity without a more satisfactory theory\nof history than they at present possess. It is a complete mistake\nto charge women with being retrograde on account of these feelings\nof regret which are most honourable to them. They might retort the\ncharge with far better reason on the revolutionists, for their blind\nadmiration of Greek and Roman society, which they still persist in\nasserting to be superior to Catholic Feudalism; a delusion, the\ncontinuance of which is principally due to our absurd system of\nclassical education, from which women are fortunately preserved.\n\nHowever this may be, the feelings of women upon these subjects are a\nvery plain and simple demonstration of the first condition of social\nregeneration, which is, that Politics must again be subordinated to\nMorality; and this upon a more intelligible, more comprehensive, and\nmore permanent basis than Catholicism could supply. A system which\nsupplied such a basis would naturally involve reverence for women as\none of its characteristic results. Such, then, are the terms on which\nwomen will cordially co-operate in the progressive movement. Nothing\nbut incapacity to satisfy these terms could induce any thinkers to\ncondemn the conception as retrograde.\n\nIt is not, then, to the Revolution itself that women feel antipathy,\nbut to the anti-historic spirit which prevailed in its first phase.\nThe blind abuse lavished on the Middle Ages wounds their strongest\nsympathies. They care little for metaphysical theories of society in\nwhich human happiness is made to consist in a continual exercise of\npolitical rights; for political rights, however attractively presented,\nwill always fail to interest them. But they give their cordial sympathy\nto all reasonable claims of the people; and these claims form the real\nobject of the revolutionary crisis. They will wish all success to\nphilosophers and workmen when they see them endeavouring to transform\npolitical disputes into social compacts, and proving that they have\ngreater regard for duties than for rights. If they regret the decline\nof the gentle influence which they possessed in former times, it is\nprincipally because they find it superseded by coarse and egotistic\nfeelings, which are now no longer counterbalanced by revolutionary\nenthusiasm. Instead of blaming their antipathies, we should learn\nfrom them the urgent necessity of putting an end to the moral and\nintellectual anarchy of our times; for this it is which gives a ground\nof real justice to their reproaches.\n\n [But they will sympathize\n with constructive\n tendencies; and will\n distinguish sound philosophy\n from scientific specialities]\n\nWomen will gladly associate themselves with the Revolution as soon as\nits work of reconstruction is fairly begun. Its negative phase must not\nbe prolonged too far. It is difficult enough for them to understand how\nsuch a phase could ever be necessary; therefore they cannot be expected\nto excuse its aberrations. The true connexion of the Revolution\nwith the Middle Ages must be fairly stated. History, when rightly\ninterpreted, will show them that its real object is, while laying\ndown a surer basis for Morality, to restore it to the old position of\nsuperiority over Politics in which the mediaeval system first placed\nit. Women will feel enthusiasm for the second phase of the Revolution,\nwhen they see republicanism in the light in which Positivism presents\nit, modified by the spirit of ancient chivalry.\n\nThen, and not till then, will the movement of social regeneration be\nfairly begun. The movement can have no great force until women give\ncordial support to it; for it is they who are the best representatives\nof the fundamental principle on which Positivism rests, the victory\nof social over selfish affections. On philosophers rests the duty\nof giving logical coherence to this principle, and saving it from\nsophistical attacks. Its practical working depends upon the proletary\nclass, without whose aid it would almost always be evaded. But to\nmaintain it in all its purity, as an inspiration that needs neither\nargument nor compulsion, is the work of women only. So constituted, the\nalliance of the three classes will be the foreshadowed image of the\nnormal state to which Humanity is tending. It will be the living type\nof perfect human nature.\n\nUnless the new philosophy can obtain the support of women, the attempt\nto substitute it for theology in the regulation of social life had\nbetter be abandoned. But if the theory stated in my first chapter be\ntrue, Positivism will have even greater influence with women than with\nthe working classes. In the principle which animates it, in its manner\nof regarding and of handling the great problem of human life, it is but\na systematic development of what women have always felt instinctively.\nTo them, as to the people, it offers a noble career of social\nusefulness, and it holds out a sure prospect of improvement in their\nown personal position.\n\nNor is it surprising that the new philosophy should possess such\nqualities. They follow naturally from the reality which is one of its\nchief claims to acceptance; in other words, from the exactness with\nwhich it takes account of the facts of every subject that it deals\nwith. Strong as the prejudices of women are upon religious questions,\nit cannot be long before they find out that Positivism satisfies, not\nmerely their intellectual, but their moral and social wants better than\nCatholicism. They will then have no further reason for clinging to\nthe old system, of the decayed condition of which they are perfectly\naware. At present they not unnaturally confound Positivism with the\nscientific specialities on which it is based. Scientific studies have,\nas they see, a hardening influence, which they cannot suppose that the\nnew school of philosophers, who insist so strongly upon the necessity\nof studying science, can have escaped. Closer acquaintance with the\nsubject will show them where their error lies. They will see that the\nmoral danger of scientific studies arises almost entirely from want of\npurpose and from irrational speciality, which always alienate them from\nthe social point of view. But for the Positivist this danger does not\nexist; since, however far he may carry these preliminary studies, he\ndoes so simply in order to gain a stronger grasp of social questions.\nHis one object is to concentrate all the powers of Man upon the general\nadvancement of the race. And so long as this object be kept in view,\nwomen\u2019s good sense will readily distinguish between the training\nnecessary for it, and the puerilities of the learned societies. The\ngeneral spirit of this work, however, makes further explanation\nunnecessary.\n\n [Women\u2019s position in\n society. Like philosophers\n and people, their part is\n not to govern, but to modify]\n\nThe social mission of woman in the Positive system follows as a natural\nconsequence from the qualities peculiar to her nature.\n\nIn the most essential attribute of the human race, the tendency to\nplace social above personal feeling, she is undoubtedly superior to\nman. Morally, therefore, and apart from all material considerations,\nshe merits always our loving veneration, as the purest and simplest\nimpersonation of Humanity, who can never be adequately represented in\nany masculine form. But these qualities do not involve the possession\nof political power, which some visionaries have claimed for women,\nthough without their own consent. In that which is the great object\nof human life, they are superior to men; but in the various means of\nattaining that object they are undoubtedly inferior. In all kinds of\nforce, whether physical, intellectual, or practical, it is certain that\nMan surpasses Woman, in accordance with a general law which prevails\nthroughout the animal kingdom. Now practical life is necessarily\ngoverned by force rather than by affection, because it requires\nunremitting and laborious activity. If there were nothing else to do\nbut to love, as in the Christian utopia of a future life in which there\nare no material wants, Women would be supreme. But life is surrounded\nwith difficulties, which it needs all our thoughts and energies to\navoid; therefore Man takes the command, notwithstanding his inferiority\nin goodness. Success in all great efforts depends more upon energy and\ntalent than upon goodwill, although this last condition reacts strongly\nupon the others.\n\nThus the three elements of our moral constitution do not act in perfect\nharmony. Force is naturally supreme, and all that women can do is\nto modify it by affection. Justly conscious of their superiority in\nstrength of feeling, they endeavour to assert their influence in a way\nwhich is often attributed by superficial observers to the mere love\nof power. But experience always teaches them that in a world where\nthe simplest necessaries of life are scarce and difficult to procure,\npower must belong to the strongest, not to the most affectionate, even\nthough the latter may deserve it best. With all their efforts they can\nnever do more than modify the harshness with which men exercise their\nauthority. And men submit more readily to this modifying influence,\nfrom feeling that in the highest attributes of Humanity women are their\nsuperiors. They see that their own supremacy is due principally to the\nmaterial necessities of life, provision for which calls into play the\nself-regarding rather than the social instincts. Hence we find it the\ncase in every phase of human society that women\u2019s life is essentially\ndomestic, public life being confined to men. Civilization, so far from\neffacing this natural distinction, tends, as I shall afterwards show,\nto develop it, while remedying its abuses.\n\nThus the social position of women is in this respect very similar to\nthat of philosophers and of the working classes. And we now see why\nthese three elements should be united. It is their combined action\nwhich constitutes the moral or modifying force of society.\n\nPhilosophers are excluded from political power by the same fatality\nas women, although they are apt to think that their intellectual\neminence gives them a claim to it. Were our material wants more easily\nsatisfied, the influence of intellect would be less impeded than it is\nby the practical business of life. But, on this hypothesis, women would\nhave a better claim to govern than philosophers. For the reasoning\nfaculties would have remained almost inert had they not been needed to\nguide our energies; the constitution of the brain not being such as to\nfavour their spontaneous development. Whereas the affective principle\nis dependent on no such external stimulus for its activity. A life of\nthought is a more evident disqualification for the government of the\nworld even than a life of feeling, although the pride of philosophers\nis a greater obstacle to submission than the vanity of women. With all\nits pretensions, intellectual force is not in itself more moral than\nmaterial force. Each is but an instrument; the merit depends entirely\nupon its right employment. The only element of our nature which is\nin itself moral is Love; for Love alone tends of itself towards the\npreponderance of social feeling over self-interest. And since even Love\ncannot govern, what can be the claim of Intellect? In practical life\nprecedence must always depend upon superior energy. Reason, even more\nthan Feeling, must be restricted to the task of modifying. Philosophers\ntherefore must be excluded from government, at least as rigidly as\nwomen. It is in vain for intellect to attempt to command; it never\ncan do more than modify. In fact, the morality which it indirectly\npossesses is due to this impossibility of exercising compulsory\npower, and would be ruined by the attainment of it, supposing it were\npossible. Intellect may do much to amend the natural order of things,\nprovided that it does not attempt to subvert it. What it can do is by\nits power of systematic arrangement to effect the union of all the\nclasses who are likely to exert a beneficial influence on material\npower. It is with this view that every spiritual power has availed\nitself of the aid of women, as we see was the case in the Middle Ages.\n\nProceeding with our sociological analysis of moral force, we shall find\nan equally striking resemblance between the influence of Women and that\nexercised by the People.\n\nIn the first stage of progress, there is no modifying power except what\nsprings from Feeling; afterwards Intellect combines with it, finding\nitself unable to govern. The only element now wanting is Activity; and\nthis want, which is indispensable, is supplied by the co-operation of\nthe people. The fact is, that although the people constitute the basis\non which all political power rests, yet they have as little to do\ndirectly with the administration of power as philosophers or women.\n\nPower, in the strict sense of the word, power, that is, which controls\naction without persuading the will, has two perfectly distinct sources,\nnumbers and wealth. The force of numbers is usually considered the more\nmaterial of the two; but in reality it is the more moral. Being created\nby co-operation, it involves some convergence of ideas and feelings,\nand therefore it does not give such free scope for the self-regarding\ninstincts as the more concentrated power of wealth. But for this very\nreason, it is too indirect and precarious for the ordinary purposes\nof government. It can influence government morally, but cannot take\nan active part in it. The same causes which exclude philosophers and\nwomen apply in the case of the people. Our material necessities are so\nurgent, that those who have the means of providing for them will always\nbe the possessors of power. Now the wealthy have these means; they\nhold in their hands the products of labour, by which each generation\nfacilitates the existence and prepares the operations of its successor.\nConsequently the power of the capitalist is one of so concentrated a\nkind, that numbers can very seldom resist it successfully. Even in\nmilitary nations we find the same thing; the influence of numbers,\nthough more direct, affects only the mode of acquiring wealth, not\nits tenure. But in industrial states, where wealth is acquired by\nother ways than violence, the law is evident. And with the advance\nof civilization it will operate not less, but more strongly. Capital\nis ever on the increase, and consequently is ever creating means of\nsubsistence for those who possess nothing. In this sense, but in no\nother, the cynical maxim of Antiquity, _Paucis nascitur humanum genus_,\nwill always bear a true meaning. The few provide subsistence for the\nmany. We come back, then, to the conclusion of the last chapter; that\nthe working classes are not destined for political power, but that they\ntend to become a most important source of moral power. The moral value\nof their influence is even more indirect than that of philosophers,\nand depends even more in their case upon subordination politically.\nIn the few cases where government passes for a time into the hands\nof the masses, wealth in its turn assumes a sort of moral influence\nforeign to its nature. It moderates the violence with which government\nis apt to be administered in such cases. The high intellectual and\nmoral qualities belonging to the working classes are, as we have seen,\nin great part due to their social position. They would be seriously\nimpaired if the political authority that belongs to wealth were\nhabitually transferred to numbers.\n\n [The united action of\n philosophers, women, and\n proletaries constitutes\n Moral Force]\n\nSuch, in outline, is the Positive theory of Moral Force. By it the\ndespotism of material force may be in part controlled. It rests upon\nthe union of the three elements in society who are excluded from the\nsphere of politics strictly so called. In their combined action lies\nour principal hope of solving, so far as it can be solved, the great\nproblem of man\u2019s nature, the successful struggle of Social Feeling\nagainst Self-love. Each of the three elements supplies a quality\nindispensable to the task. Without women this controlling power would\nbe deficient in purity and spontaneous impulse; without philosophers,\nin wisdom and coherence; without the people, in energy and activity.\nThe philosophic element, although neither the most direct nor the most\nefficient, is yet the distinctive feature of this power, because its\nfunction is to organize its constitution and direct its operations in\naccordance with the true laws of social life. As being the systematic\norgan of the spiritual power it has become identified with it in\nname. This, however, may lead to an erroneous conception. The moral\naspect of the spiritual power is more important than the intellectual.\nWhile retaining the name as an historical tradition of real value,\nPositivists attach a somewhat different meaning to it. It originated in\na time when theories of society were unknown, and when Intellect was\nconsidered as the central principle of human nature.\n\nSpiritual power, as interpreted by Positivism, begins with the\ninfluence of women in the family; it is afterwards moulded into a\nsystem by thinkers, while the people are the guarantees for its\npolitical efficiency. Although it is the intellectual class that\ninstitutes the union, yet its own part in it, as it should never\nforget, is less direct than that of women, less practical than that of\nthe people. The thinker is socially powerless except so far as he is\nsupported by feminine sympathy and popular energy.\n\nThus the necessity of associating women in the movement of social\nregeneration creates no obstacle whatever to the philosophy by which\nthat movement is to be directed. On the contrary, it aids its progress,\nby showing the true character of the moral force which is destined\nto control all the other forces of man. It involves as perfect an\ninauguration of the normal state as our times of transition admit.\nFor the chief characteristic of that state will be a more complete\nand more harmonious union of the same three classes to whom we are\nnow looking for the first impulse of reform. Already we can see how\nperfectly adapted to the constitution of man this final condition of\nHumanity will be. Feeling, Reason, Activity, whether viewed separately\nor in combination, correspond exactly to the three elements of the\nregenerative movement, Women, Philosophers, and People.\n\nVerification of this theory may be found more or less distinctly in\nevery period of history. Each of the three classes referred to have\nalways borne out the biological law that the life of relation or animal\nlife, is subordinated to the life of nutrition. Still more striking is\nthe application to this case of another general principle, namely, that\nProgress is the development of Order; a principle which, as I showed in\nthe second chapter, connects every dynamical question in Sociology with\nthe corresponding statical conception. For with the growth of society,\nthe modifying influence of moral force is always increasing, both by\nlarger scope being given to each of its three elements specially, and\nalso by the more perfect consolidation of their union. Robertson has\nmade an important remark on the gradual improvement in the condition\nof women, which is but a particular case of this sociological law.\nThe general principle on which progress in all three classes depends,\nis the biological law, that the preponderance of vegetable life over\nanimal life diminishes as the organism is higher in the scale and is\nmore perfectly developed.\n\nDuring the various phases of ancient Polytheism, the controlling\npower consisted simply of the moral influence exerted by women in the\nFamily. In public life the influence of thinkers had not made itself\nindependent of the governmental authority, of which it was sometimes\nthe source, sometimes the instrument. Mediaeval Catholicism went a\nstep further, and took the first step in systematizing moral force.\nIt created an independent spiritual authority to which political\ngovernments were subordinated, and this authority was always supported\nby women. But the complete organization of moral force was reserved\nfor modern times. It is only recently that the working classes have\nbegun to interfere actively in social questions; and, as I have shown\nin the preceding chapter, it is from their co-operation that the\nnew spiritual power will derive its practical efficiency. Limited\noriginally to the sphere of Feeling, and subsequently extended to the\nintellectual sphere, it henceforward embraces the sphere of Activity;\nand this without losing its spiritual character, since the influences\nof which it consists are entirely distinct from the domain of practical\npolitics. Each of its three elements persuades, advises, judges;\nbut except in isolated cases, never commands. The social mission of\nPositivism is to regulate and combine their spontaneous action, by\ndirecting each to the objects for which it is best adapted.\n\nAnd this mission, in spite of strong prejudices to the contrary, it\nwill be found well calculated to fulfil. I have already shown its\nadaptation to the case of the people and of the philosophic body,\nwhether regarded separately or in combination: I have now to show that\nit is equally adapted to the case of women.\n\nIn proof of this I have but to refer to the principle on which, as\nstated in the first chapter, the whole system of Positivism is based;\nthe preponderance of affection in our nature. Such a principle is of\nitself an appeal to women to associate themselves with the system, as\none of its essential elements. In Catholicism, their co-operation,\nthough valuable, was not of primary importance, because Catholicism\nclaimed a divine origin independent of their assistance. But to\nPositivism they are indispensable, as being the purest and simplest\nembodiment of its fundamental principle. It is not merely in the Family\nthat their influence will be required. Their duty will often be to call\nphilosophers and people back to that unity of purpose which originated\nin the first place with themselves, and which each of the other\nelements is often disposed to violate.\n\nAll true philosophers will no doubt accept and be profoundly influenced\nby the conviction, that in all subjects of thought the social point\nof view should be logically and scientifically preponderant. They\nwill consequently admit the truth that the Heart takes precedence\nof the Understanding. Still they require some more direct incentive\nto universal Love than these convictions can supply. Knowing, as\nthey do, how slight is the practical result of purely intellectual\nconsiderations, they will welcome so precious an incentive, were it\nonly in the interest of their own mission. I recognized its necessity\nmyself, when I wrote on the 11th of March, 1846, to her who, in\nspite of death, will always remain my constant companion[7]: \u2018I was\nincomplete as a philosopher, until the experience of deep and pure\npassion has given me fuller insight into the emotional side of human\nnature\u2019. Strong affection exercises a marvellous influence upon mental\neffort. It elevates the intellect at once to the only point of view\nwhich is really universal. Doubtless, the method of pure science leads\nup to it also; but only by a long and toilsome process, which exhausts\nthe power of thought, and leaves little energy for following out the\nnew results to which this great principle gives rise. The stimulation\nof affection under feminine influence is necessary, therefore, for\nthe acceptance of Positivism, not merely in those classes for whom a\nlong preliminary course of scientific study would be impossible. It\nis equally necessary for the systematic teachers of Positivism, in\nwhom it checks the tendency, which is encouraged by habits of abstract\nspeculation, to deviate into useless digressions; these being always\neasier to prosecute than researches of real value.\n\n [Superiority of the new\n spiritual power to the old.\n Self-regarding tendencies of\n Catholic doctrine]\n\nUnder this aspect the new spiritual system is obviously superior to\nthe old. By the institution of celibacy, which was indispensable to\nCatholicism, its priests were entirely removed from the beneficial\ninfluence exercised by women. Only those could profit from it who\ndid not belong to the ecclesiastical body; the members of that body,\nas Ariosto has remarked in his vigorous satire, were excluded. Nor\ncould the evil be remedied, except in very rare cases, by irregular\nattachment, which inevitably corrupted the priest\u2019s character by\ninvolving the necessity of perpetual hypocrisy.\n\nAnd when we look at the difference of the spirit by which the two\nsystems are pervaded, we shall find still more striking evidence that\nthe new system offers a far larger sphere of moral influence to women\nthan the old.\n\nBoth are based upon the principle of affection; but in Positivism the\naffection inculcated is social, in Catholicism it is essentially\npersonal. The object of Catholic devotion is one of such stupendous\nmagnitude, that feelings which are unconnected with it are in danger\nof being crushed. The priesthood, it is true, wise interpreters in\nthis respect of a general instinct, brought all the more important\nsocial obligations within the compass of religion, and held them out\nas necessary for salvation. Indirectly, the nobler feelings were\nthus called into action; but at the same time they were rendered far\nless spontaneous and pure. There could be no perfectly disinterested\naffection under a system which promised eternal rewards for all acts\nof self-denial. For it was impossible, and indeed it would have\nbeen thought sinful, to keep the future out of sight; and thus all\nspontaneous generosity was unavoidably tainted by self-interest.\nCatholicism gave rise to an ignoble theory of morals which became very\nmischievous when it was adopted by the metaphysicians; because, while\nretaining the vicious principle, they swept away the checks by which\nthe priesthood had controlled it. But even when we look at the purest\nform in which the love of God was exhibited, we cannot call it a social\nfeeling, except in so far as the same object of worship was held out\nsimultaneously to all. Intrinsically, it is anti-social, since, when\nattained in absolute perfection, it implies the entire sacrifice of\nall other love. And in the best representatives of Christian thought\nand feeling, this tendency is very apparent. No one has portrayed the\nCatholic ideal with such sublimity and pathos as the author of the\n_Imitation_, a work which so well deserved the beautiful translation of\nCorneille. And yet, reading it as I do daily, I cannot help remarking\nhow grievously the natural nobleness of Thomas A\u2019Kempis was impaired by\nthe Catholic system, although in spite of all obstacles he rises at\ntimes to the purest ardour. Certainly those of our feelings which are\npurely unselfish must be far stronger and more spontaneous than ever\nhas yet been supposed, since even the oppressive discipline of twelve\ncenturies could not prevent their growth.\n\n [The spirit of Positivism,\n on the contrary, is\n essentially social. The\n Heart and the Intellect\n mutually strengthen each\n other]\n\nPositivism, from the fact of its conformity with the constitution of\nour nature, is the only system calculated to develop, both in public\nand in private life, those high attributes of Humanity which, for want\nof adequate systematic culture, are still in their rudimentary stage.\nCatholicism, while appealing to the Heart, crushed Intellect, and\nIntellect naturally struggled to throw off the yoke. Positivism, on the\ncontrary, brings Reason into complete harmony with Feeling, without\nimpairing the activity of either.\n\nScientific study of the relation which each individual bears to the\nwhole race is a continual stimulus to social sympathy. Without a\ntheory of society, it is impossible to keep this relation distinctly\nand constantly in view. It is only noticed in a few exceptional cases,\nand unconnected impressions are soon effaced from the memory. But the\nPositivist teacher, taking the social point of view invariably, will\nmake this notion far more familiar to us than it has ever been before.\nHe will show us the impossibility of understanding any individual\nor society apart from the whole life of the race. Nothing but the\nbewilderment caused by theological and metaphysical doctrines can\naccount for the shallow explanations of human affairs given by our\nteachers, attributing as they do to Man what is really due to Humanity.\nBut with the sounder theory that we now possess, we can see the truth\nas it really stands. We have but to look each of us at our own life\nunder its physical, intellectual, or moral aspects, to recognize what\nit is that we owe to the combined action of our predecessors and\ncontemporaries. The man who dares to think himself independent of\nothers, either in feelings, thoughts, or actions, cannot even put the\nblasphemous conception into words without immediate self-contradiction,\nsince the very language he uses is not his own. The profoundest\nthinker cannot by himself form the simplest language; it requires the\nco-operation of a community for several generations. Without further\nillustration, the tendency of Positive doctrine is evident. It appeals\nsystematically to our social instincts, by constantly impressing\nupon us that only the Whole is real; that the Parts exist only in\nabstraction.\n\nBut independently of the beneficial influence which, in this final\nstate of Humanity, the mind will exercise upon the heart, the direct\nculture of the heart itself will be more pure and more vigorous than\nunder any former system. It offers us the only means of disengaging\nour benevolent affections from all calculations of self-interest. As\nfar as the imperfection of man\u2019s nature admits, these affections will\ngradually become supreme, since they give deeper satisfaction than all\nothers, and are capable of fuller development. Setting the rewards and\npunishments of theology aside, we shall attain at last to that which is\nthe real happiness of man, pure and disinterested love. This is truly\nthe Sovereign Good, sought for so long by former systems of philosophy\nin vain. That it surpasses all other good one fact will show, known to\nthe tender-hearted from personal experience; that it is even better to\nlove than to be loved. Overstrained as this may seem to many, it is yet\nin harmony with a general truth, that our nature is in a healthier\nstate when active than when passive. In the happiness of being loved,\nthere is always some tinge of self-love; it is impossible not to feel\npride in the love of one whom we prefer to all others. Since, then,\nloving gives purer satisfaction than being loved, the superiority\nof perfectly disinterested affection is at once demonstrated. It\nis the fundamental defect of our nature, that intrinsically these\naffections are far weaker than the selfish propensities connected with\nthe preservation of our own existence. But when they have been once\naroused, even though the original stimulus may have been personal,\nthey have greater capacity of growth, owing to the peculiar charm\ninherent in them. Besides, in the exercise of these feelings, all of\nus can co-operate with and encourage one another, whereas the reverse\nis the case with the selfish instincts. There is, therefore, nothing\nunreasonable in supposing that Positivism, by regulating and combining\nthese natural tendencies, may rouse our sympathetic instincts to a\ncondition of permanent activity hitherto unknown. When the heart is\nno longer crushed by theological dogmas, or hardened by metaphysical\ntheories, we soon discover that real happiness, whether public or\nprivate, consists in the highest possible development of the social\ninstincts. Self-love comes to be regarded as an incurable infirmity,\nwhich is to be yielded to only so far as is absolutely necessary.\nHere lies the universal adaptability of Positivism to every type of\ncharacter and to all circumstances. In the humblest relations of life,\nas in the highest, regenerate Humanity will apply the obvious truth, It\nis better to give than to receive.\n\nThe Heart thus aroused will in its turn react beneficially upon the\nIntellect; and it is especially from women that this reaction will\nproceed. I have spoken of it so fully before, that I need not describe\nit further. It is in Feeling that I find the basis on which the whole\nstructure of Positivism, intellectually as well as morally considered,\nrests. The only remark I have now to add is, that by following out this\nprinciple, philosophical difficulties of the most formidable kind are\nat once surmounted. From moral considerations, the intellect may be\nreadily induced to submit to scientific restrictions, the propriety of\nwhich would remain for a long time matter of debate, were philosophical\ndiscussions the only means of indicating it. Attempt, for instance,\nto convince a pure mathematician, however conscientious and talented,\nthat Sociology is both logically and scientifically superior to all\nother studies. He would not readily admit this; and severe exertion\nof the inductive and deductive faculties can alone convince him of\nit. But by the aid of Feeling, an artisan or a woman can, without\neducation, readily grasp this great encyclop\u00e6dic principle, and apply\nit practically to the common affairs of life. But for this, the larger\nconceptions of philosophy would have but a limited range, and very\nfew would be capable of the course of study which is yet so important\non social grounds for all. Comprehensiveness of mind is no doubt\nfavourable to sympathy, but is itself more actively stimulated by it.\nWhen the Positivist method of education is accepted, moral excellence\nwill be very generally regarded as a guarantee of real intellectual\ncapacity. The revolutionist leaders of the Convention showed their\nsense of this connexion by allowing, as they did sometimes, republican\nardour to outweigh scientific attainment. Of course, so long as men\nremain without a systematic theory of morals, such policy would be\nlikely to fail of its object, and indeed would become positively\nmischievous. But the reproach is usually that it was a retrograde\npolicy, a reproach far more applicable to the present system, in which\nthe standard of fitness for any office is regulated exclusively by\nintellectual considerations, the heart being altogether disregarded.\nHistorically we can explain this practice by the fact that the\nreligious faith in which our moral nature has hitherto been trained\nhas been of a most oppressive character. Ever since the Middle Ages,\nthe intellect and the heart have been unavoidably at issue. Positivism\nis the only system which can put an end to their antagonism, because,\nas I have before explained, while subordinating Reason to Feeling, it\ndoes so in such a way as not to impair the development of either. With\nits present untenable claims to supremacy, Intellect is in reality the\nprincipal source of social discord. Until it abdicates in favour of\nthe Heart, it can never be of real service in reconstruction. But its\nabdication will be useless, unless it is entirely voluntary. Now this\nis precisely the result which Positivism attains, because it takes\nup the very ground on which the claims of intellect are defended,\nnamely, scientific demonstration, a ground which the defenders of\nintellect cannot repudiate without suspicion at once attaching to their\nmotives. But theological or metaphysical remedies can only exasperate\nthe disease. By oppressing the intellect they provoke it to fresh\ninsurrection against the heart.\n\n [Intellectual and moral\n affinities of women with\n Positivism]\n\nFor all these reasons, women, who are better judges of moral questions\nthan ourselves, will admit that Positivism, incontestably superior\nas it is to other systems intellectually, surpasses them yet more\nin dealing with the affections. Their only objection arises from\nconfounding Positive Philosophy itself with its preliminary course of\nscientific study.\n\nWomen\u2019s minds no doubt are less capable than ours of generalizing\nvery widely, or of carrying on long processes of deduction. They are,\nthat is, less capable than men of abstract intellectual exertion. On\nthe other hand, they are generally more alive to that combination of\nreality with utility which is one of the characteristics of Positive\nspeculation. In this respect they have much in common intellectually\nwith the working classes; and fortunately they have also the same\nadvantage of being untrammelled by the present absurd system of\neducation. Nor is their position far removed from what it should be\nnormally; being less engaged than men in the business of life, their\ncontemplative faculties are called into activity more easily. Their\nminds are neither preoccupied nor indifferent; the most favourable\ncondition for the reception of philosophical truth. They have far\nmore affinity intellectually with philosophers who truly deserve\nthe name, than we find in the scientific men of the present day.\nComprehensiveness of thought they consider as important as positivity,\nwhereas our savants care for nothing but the latter quality, and even\nthat they understand imperfectly. Moli\u00e8re\u2019s remarkable expression,\n_des clart\u00e9s de tout_, which I applied in the last chapter to popular\neducation, was used by him in reference to women. Accordingly we find\nthat women took a vivid interest in the very first attempt made to\nsystematize Positive speculation, the Cartesian philosophy. No more\nstriking proof could be given of their philosophical affinities; and\nthe more so that in the Cartesian system moral and social speculations\nwere necessarily excluded. Surely, then, we may expect them to receive\nPositivism far more favourably, a system of which the principal\nsubject of speculation is the moral problem in which both sexes are\nalike interested.\n\nWomen, therefore, may, like the people, be counted among the future\nsupporters of the new philosophy. Without their combined aid it could\nnever hope to surmount the strong repugnance to it which is felt by our\ncultivated classes, especially in France, where the question of its\nsuccess has first to be decided.\n\n [Catholicism purified\n love, but did not directly\n strengthen it]\n\nBut when women have sufficient acquaintance with Positivism, to see its\nsuperiority to Catholicism in questions of feeling, they will support\nit from moral sympathy even more than from intellectual adhesion. It\nwill be the heart even more than the mind which will incline them\nto the only system of philosophy which has fully recognized the\npreponderance of Feeling. They cannot fail to be drawn towards a system\nwhich regards women as the embodiment of this principle; the unity\nof human nature, of which this principle is the basis, being thus\nentrusted to their special charge. The only reason of their regret\nfor the past, is that the present fails to satisfy their noblest\nsocial instincts. Not that Catholicism ever really satisfied them;\nindeed in its general character it is even less adapted to women than\nto men, since the dominant quality of woman\u2019s nature is in direct\ncontradiction with it. Christianity, notwithstanding its claims to\nmoral perfection, has always confounded the quality of tenderness with\nthat of purity. And it is true that love cannot be deep unless it is\nalso pure. But Catholicism, although it purified love from the animal\npropensities which had been stimulated by Polytheism, did nothing\notherwise to strengthen it. It has given us indeed too many instances\nof purity, pushed to the extent of fanaticism, without tenderness. And\nthis result is especially common now, because the austerity of the\nChristian spirit is not corrected, as it used to be, by the inspiring\ninfluences of Chivalry. Polytheism, deficient as it was in purity,\nwas really far more conducive than Christianity, to tenderness. Love\nof God, the supreme affection round which Catholicism endeavoured\nto concentrate all other feelings, was essentially a self-regarding\nprinciple, and as such conflicted with woman\u2019s noblest instincts. Not\nonly did it encourage monastic isolation, but if developed to the\nfull extent, it became inconsistent with love for our fellow men. It\nwas impiety for the knight to love his Lady better than his God; and\nthus the best feelings of his nature were repressed by his religious\nfaith. Women, therefore, are not really interested in perpetuating\nthe old system; and the very instincts by which their nature is\ncharacterized, will soon incline them to abandon it. They have only\nbeen waiting until social life should assume a less material character;\nso that morality, for the preservation of which they justly consider\nthemselves responsible, may not be compromised. And on this head\nPositivism satisfies their heart no less than their understanding with\nall the guarantees that they can require. Based as it is upon accurate\nknowledge of our nature, it can combine the simple affectionate spirit\nof Polytheism with the exquisite purity of Catholicism, without fear\nof taint from the subversive sophisms engendered by the spiritual\nanarchy of our times. Not however that purity is to be placed on the\nsame level with tenderness. Tenderness is the more essential of the\ntwo qualities, because more closely connected with the grand object\nof all human effort, the elevation of Social Feeling over Self-love.\nIn a woman without tenderness there is something even more monstrous\nthan in a man without courage. Whatever her talents and even her energy\nmay be, they will in most cases prove mischievous both to herself and\nto others, unless indeed they should be nullified by the restraint of\ntheological discipline. If she has force of character it will be wasted\nin a struggle against all legitimate authority; while her mental power\nwill be employed only in destructive sophisms. Too many cases of this\nkind present themselves in the social anarchy of the present time.\n\nSuch is the Positivist theory on the subject of Women. It marks out\nfor them a noble field of social usefulness. It extends the scope\nof their influence to public as well as private life, and yet in a\nway thoroughly in harmony with their nature. Without leaving the\nfamily, they will participate in the controlling power exercised by\nphilosophers and workmen, seeking even in their own domestic sphere\nrather to modify than to govern. In a word, as I shall show more fully\nin the last chapter of this introductory work, Woman is the spontaneous\npriestess of Humanity. She personifies in the purest form the principle\nof Love upon which the unity of our nature depends; and the culture of\nthat principle in others is her special function.\n\n [Women\u2019s influence over the\n working classes and their\n teachers]\n\nAll classes, therefore, must be brought under women\u2019s influence; for\nall require to be reminded constantly of the great truth that Reason\nand Activity are subordinate to Feeling. Of their influence upon\nphilosophers I have spoken. If they are men worthy of their mission,\nthey will be conscious of the tendency which their life has to harden\nthem and lead them into useless speculation; and they will feel the\nneed of renewing the ardour of their social sympathy at its native\nsource. Feeling, when it is pure and deep, corrects its own errors,\nbecause they clash with the good to which it is ever tending. But\nerroneous use of the intellectual or practical faculties, cannot be\neven recognized, much less corrected, without the aid of Affection,\nwhich is the only part of our nature that suffers directly from such\nerrors. Therefore whenever either the philosopher or the people\ndeviate from duty, it will be the part of women to remonstrate with\nthem gently, and recall them to the true social principles which are\nentrusted to their special charge.\n\nWith the working classes, the special danger to be contended against\nis their tendency to abuse their strength, and to resort to force for\nthe attainment of their objects, instead of persuasion. But this danger\nis after all less than that of the misuse of intellectual power to\nwhich philosophers are so liable. Thinkers who try to make reasoning\ndo the work of feeling can very seldom be convinced of their error.\nPopular excitement, on the contrary, has often yielded to feminine\ninfluence, exerted though it has been hitherto without any systematic\nguidance. The difference is no doubt partly owing to the fact that\nthere are now few or none who deserve the name of philosophers. For we\ncannot give that name to the superficial sophists and rhetoricians of\nour time, whether psychologists or ideologists, men wholly incapable\nof deep thought on any subject. Independently of this, however, the\ndifference is explained by the character of the two classes. Women\nwill always find it harder to deal with intellectual pride than with\npopular violence. Appeals to social feeling are their only weapons;\nand the social feelings of the workman are stronger than those of the\nphilosopher. Sophistry is far more formidable to them than passion. In\nfact, were it not that the working classes are even now so amenable\nto female influence, society would be in extreme danger from the\ndisorder caused by intellectual anarchy. There are many sophisms which\nmaintain themselves in spite of scientific refutation, and which would\nbe destructive of all order, were it not for our moral instincts. Of\nthis the Communists offer a striking example, in avoiding, with that\nadmirable inconsistency to which I have already called attention, the\nextension of their principle to the Family. Surrounded by the wildest\ntheories, such as, if they were put in practice, would utterly destroy\nor paralyse society, we see large numbers of working men showing in\ntheir daily life a degree of affection and respect for women, which\nis unequalled by any other class. It is well to reflect on facts like\nthese, not only because they lead us to judge the Communist school with\nmore justice, but because, occurring as they do in the midst of social\nanarchy, they show what powerful agencies for good will be at our\ndisposal in more settled times. Certainly they cannot be attributed to\ntheological teaching, which has rather had the effect of strengthening\nthe errors which it attacks by the absurdity of its refutations. They\nare simply the result of the influence which women have spontaneously\nexercised on the nobler feelings of the people. In Protestant countries\nwhere their influence is less, the mischievous effects of Communistic\ntheories have been far greater. We owe it to women that the Family has\nbeen so little injured by the retrograde spirit of those republican\nreformers, whose ideal of modern society is to absorb the Family into\nthe State, as was done by a few small tribes in ancient Greece.\n\nThe readiness shown by women in applying practical remedies to\nerroneous theories of morality is shown in other cases where the\nattractiveness of the error would seem irresistible to the coarser\nnature of men. The evils consequent on divorce, which has been\nauthorized in Germany for three centuries, have been much lessened by\nwomen\u2019s instinctive repugnance to it. The same may be said of recent\nattacks upon marriage, which are still more serious because the anarchy\nof modern life revives all the extravagances of the metaphysical spirit\nin ancient times. In no one case has a scheme of society hostile to\nmarriage met with any real favour from women, plausible as many of them\nseemed. Unable in their ignorance of social science to see the fallacy\nof such schemes themselves, our revolutionary writers cannot conceive\nthat women will not be convinced by them. But happily women, like the\npeople, judge in these matters by the heart rather than by the head. In\nthe absence of any guiding principle to direct the understanding and\nprevent the deviations to which it is always exposed, the heart is a\nfar safer guide.\n\nThere is no need at present of pursuing these remarks farther. It is\nabundantly clear that women are in every respect adapted for rectifying\nthe moral deviations to which every element in the social organism is\nliable. And if we already feel the value of their influence, springing\nas it does from the unaided inspirations of the heart, we may be sure\nit will become far more consolidated and will be far more widely felt,\nwhen it rests on the basis of a sound philosophical system, capable of\nrefuting sophisms and exposing fallacies from which their unassisted\ninstinct is insufficient to preserve us.\n\n [Their social influence in\n the _salon_]\n\nThus the part to be played by women in public life is not merely\npassive. Not only will they give their sanction individually\nand collectively to the verdicts of public opinion as formed by\nphilosophers and by the people; but they will themselves interfere\nactively in moral questions. It will be their part to maintain the\nprimary principle of Positivism, which originated with themselves, and\nof which they will always be the most natural representatives.\n\nBut, how, it may be asked, can this be reconciled with my previous\nremark that women\u2019s life should still be essentially domestic?\n\nFor the ancients, and for the greater part of the human race at the\npresent time, it would be irreconcilable. But in Western Europe the\nsolution has long ago been found. From the time when women acquired,\nas they did in the Middle Ages, a fair measure of domestic freedom,\nopportunities for social intercourse arose, which combined most happily\nthe advantages of private and of public life, and in these women\npresided. The practice afterwards extended, especially in France, and\nthese meetings became the laboratories of public opinion. It seems now\nas if they had died out, or had lost their character. The intellectual\nand moral anarchy of our times is most unfavourable to free interchange\nof thoughts and feelings. But a custom so social, and which did such\ngood service in the philosophical movement preceding the Revolution, is\nassuredly not destined to perish. In the more perfect social state to\nwhich we are tending, it will be developed more fully than ever, when\nmen\u2019s minds and hearts have accepted the rallying point offered by the\nnew philosophy.\n\nThis is, then, the mode in which women can with propriety participate\nin public life. Here all classes will recognize their authority as\nparamount. Under the new system these meetings will entirely lose\ntheir old aristocratic character, which is now simply obstructive.\nThe Positivist salon will complete the series of social meetings, in\nwhich the three elements of the spiritual power will be able to act\nin concert. First, there is the religious assemblage in the Temple of\nHumanity. Here the philosopher will naturally preside, the other two\nclasses taking on a secondary part. In the Club again it is the people\nwho will take the active part; women and philosophers would support\nthem by their presence, but without joining in the debate. Lastly,\nwomen in their salons will promote active and friendly intercourse\nbetween all three classes; and here all who may be qualified to take a\nleading part will find their influence cordially accepted. Gently and\nwithout effort a moral control will thus be established, by which acts\nof violence or folly may be checked in their source. Kind advice, given\nindirectly but earnestly, will often save the philosopher from being\nblinded by ambition, or from deviating, through intellectual pride,\ninto useless digressions. Working men at these meetings will learn\nto repress the spirit of violence or envy that frequently arises in\nthem, recognizing the sacredness of the care thus manifested for their\ninterests. And the great and the wealthy will be taught from the manner\nin which praise and blame is given by those whose opinion is most\nvalued, that the only justifiable use of power or talent is to devote\nit to the service of the weak.\n\n [But the Family is their\n principal sphere of action]\n\nBut, however important the public duties that women will ultimately\nbe called upon to perform, the Family is after all their highest and\nmost distinctive sphere of work. It was in allusion to their domestic\ninfluence that I spoke of them as the originators of spiritual power.\nNow the Family, although it is the basis of all human society, has\nnever been satisfactorily defended by any received system of society.\nAll the corrosive power of metaphysical analysis has been employed\nupon it; and of many of the sophisms put forward no rational refutation\nhas been given. On the other hand, the protection of the theologians\nis no less injurious. For they still persist in connecting the\ninstitutions of the Family with their obsolete dogmas, which, however\nuseful they may have been formerly, are now simply dangerous. From the\nclose of the Middle Ages the priesthood has been powerless, as the\nlicentious songs of the troubadours prove, to protect the sanctity of\nmarriage against the shallow but mischievous attacks which even then\nwere made against it. And afterwards, when these false principles\nbecame more generally prevalent, and even royal courts disgraced\nthemselves by giving public approval to them, the weakness of the\npriests became still more manifest. Thus nothing can be more monstrous\nthan these ignorant assertions that theological doctrines have been the\nsafeguard of the Family. They have done nothing to preserve it from the\nmost subversive attacks, under which it must have succumbed, but for\nthe better instincts of society, especially of the female portion of\nit. With the exception of a foolish fiction about the origin of Woman,\ntheology has put forward no systematic defence of marriage; and as\nsoon as theological authority itself fell into discredit, the feeble\nsanction which it gave to domestic morality became utterly powerless\nagainst sophistical attacks. But now that the Family can be shown on\nPositive principles to rest on scientific laws of human nature or\nof society, the danger of metaphysical controversy and theological\nfeebleness is past. These principles will be discussed systematically\nin the second volume of the larger Treatise to which this work is the\nIntroduction. But the few remarks to which I must at present limit\nmyself, will, I hope, at least satisfy the reader as to the capability\nof Positivism to re-establish morality upon a firm basis.\n\n [Woman\u2019s mission as a wife.\n Conjugal love an education\n for universal sympathy]\n\nAccording to the lower views of the subject, such as those coarsely\nexpressed by the great hero of reaction, Napoleon, procreation and\nmaternity are the only social functions of Woman. Indeed many theorists\nobject even to her rearing her children, and think it preferable\nto leave them to the abstract benevolence of the State. But in the\nPositivist theory of marriage, the principal function of Woman is one\nquite unconnected with procreation. It is a function dependent on the\nhighest attributes of our nature.\n\nVast as is the moral importance of maternity, yet the position of\nwife has always been considered even more characteristic of woman\u2019s\nnature; as shown by the fact that the words woman and wife are in many\nlanguages synonymous. Marriage is not always followed by children; and\nbesides this, a bad wife is very seldom indeed a good mother. The first\naspect then, under which Positivism considers Woman, is simply as the\ncompanion of Man, irrespective of her maternal duties.\n\nViewed thus, Marriage is the most elementary and yet the most perfect\nmode of social life. It is the only association in which entire\nidentity of interests is possible. In this union, to the moral\ncompleteness of which the language of all civilized nations bears\ntestimony, the noblest aim of human life is realized, as far as it\never can be. For the object of human existence, as shown in the second\nchapter, is progress of every kind; progress in morality, that is to\nsay in the subjection of Self-interest to Social Feeling, holding the\nfirst rank. Now this unquestionable principle leads us by a very sure\nand direct path to the true theory of marriage.\n\nDifferent as the two sexes are by nature, and increased as that\ndifference is by the diversity which happily exists in their social\nposition, each is consequently necessary to the moral development\nof the other. In practical energy and in the mental capacity which\nusually accompanies it, Man is evidently superior to Woman. Woman\u2019s\nstrength, on the other hand, lies in Feeling. She excels Man in love,\nas Man excels her in force. It is impossible to conceive of a closer\nunion than that which binds these two beings to the mutual service and\nperfection of each other, saving them from all danger of rivalry. The\nvoluntary character too of this union gives it a still further charm,\nwhen the choice has been on both sides a happy one. In the Positive\ntheory, then, of marriage, its principal object is considered to be\nthat of completing and confirming the education of the heart by calling\nout the purest and strongest of human sympathies.\n\nIt is true that sexual instinct, which, in man\u2019s case at all events,\nwas the origin of conjugal attachment, is a feeling purely selfish. It\nis also true that its absence would in the majority of cases, diminish\nthe energy of affection. But woman with her more loving heart, has\nusually far less need of this coarse stimulus than man. The influence\nof her purity reacts on man, and ennobles his affection. And affection\nis in itself so sweet, that when once it has been aroused by whatever\nagency, its own charm is sufficient to maintain it in activity. When\nthis is the case, conjugal union becomes a perfect ideal of friendship;\nyet still more beautiful than friendship, because each possesses and is\npossessed by the other. For perfect friendship, difference of sex is\nessential, as excluding the possibility of rivalry. No other voluntary\ntie can admit of such full and unrestrained confidence. It is the\nsource of the most unalloyed happiness that man can enjoy; for there\ncan be no greater happiness than to live for another.\n\nBut independently of the intrinsic value of this sacred union, we have\nto consider its importance from the social point of view. It is the\nfirst stage in our progress towards that which is the final object of\nmoral education, namely, universal love. Many writers of the so-called\nsocialist school, look upon conjugal love and universal benevolence,\nthe two extreme terms in the scale of affections, as opposed to each\nother. In the second chapter, I pointed out the falseness and danger\nof this view. The man who is incapable of deep affection for one\nwhom he has chosen as his partner in the most intimate relations of\nlife, can hardly expect to be believed when he professes devotion to\na mass of human beings of whom he knows nothing. The heart cannot\nthrow off its original selfishness, without the aid of some complete\nand enduring affection. And conjugal love, concentrated as it is upon\none object exclusively, is more enduring and complete than any other.\nFrom personal experience of strong love we rise by degrees to sincere\naffection for all mankind; although, as the scope of feeling widens,\nits energy must decrease. The connexion of these two states of feeling\nis instinctively recognized by all; and it is clearly indicated by the\nPositive theory of human nature, which has now placed it beyond the\nreach of metaphysical attacks. When the moral empire of Woman has been\nmore firmly established by the diffusion of Positivist principles, men\nwill see that the common practice of looking to the private life of a\nstatesman as the best guarantee of his public conduct had deep wisdom\nin it. One of the strongest symptoms of the general laxity of morals to\nwhich mental anarchy has brought us, is that disgraceful law passed\nin France thirty years ago, and not yet repealed; the avowed object\nof which was to surround men\u2019s lives with a \u2018wall\u2019 of privacy; a law\nintroduced by psychologist politicians who no doubt needed such a\nwall.[8]\n\n [Conditions of marriage.\n Indissoluble monogamy]\n\nThe purpose of marriage once clearly understood, it becomes easy to\ndefine its conditions. The intervention of society is necessary; but\nits only object is to confirm and to develop the order of things which\nexists naturally.\n\nIt is essential in the first place to the high purposes for which\nmarriage has been instituted, that the union shall be both exclusive\nand indissoluble. So essential indeed are both conditions, that we\nfrequently find them even when the connexion is illegal. That any one\nshould have ventured to propound the doctrine that human happiness is\nto be secured by levity and inconsistency in love, is a fact which\nnothing but the utter deficiency of social and moral principles can\nexplain. Love cannot be deep unless it remains constant to a fixed\nobject. The very possibility of change is a temptation to it. So\ndifferently constituted as man and woman are, is their short life too\nmuch for perfect knowledge and love of one another? Yet the versatility\nto which most human affection is liable makes the intervention of\nsociety necessary. Without some check upon indecision and caprice, life\nmight degenerate into a miserable series of experiments, each ending\nin failure and degradation. Sexual love may become a powerful engine\nfor good: but only on the condition of placing it under rigorous and\npermanent discipline. Those who doubt the necessity for this, have only\nto cast a glance beyond Western Europe at the countries where no such\ndiscipline has been established. It has been said that the adoption or\nrejection of monogamy is a simple question of climate. But for this\nhypothesis there is no ground whatever. It is as contrary to common\nobservation as to philosophic theory. Marriage, like every other human\ninstitution, has always been improving. Beginning in all countries with\nunrestricted polygamy, it tends in all to the purest monogamy. Tracing\nback the history of Northern Europe, we find polygamy there as well as\nin the South; and Southern nations, like Northern, adopt polygamy as\ntheir social life advances. We see the tendency to it in those parts of\nthe East which come into contact with Western civilization.\n\nMonogamy, then, is one of the most precious gifts which the Middle Ages\nhave bequeathed to Western Europe. The striking superiority of social\nlife in the West is probably due to it more than to any other cause.\nProtestant countries have seriously impaired its value by their laws of\ndivorce. But this aberration will hardly be permanent. It is alien to\nthe purer feelings of women and of the people, and the mischief done by\nit is limited to the privileged classes. France is now threatened with\na revival of the metaphysical delusions of the Revolution, and it is\nfeared by some that the disastrous example of Germany in this respect\nwill be imitated. But all such tendencies, being utterly inconsistent\nwith the habits of modern life, will soon be checked by the sounder\nphilosophical principles which have now arisen. The mode of resistance\nto these errors which Positivism adopts will render the struggle most\nuseful in hastening the adoption of the true theory of marriage. The\nspirit of Positivism being always relative, concessions may be made\nto meet exceptional cases, without weakening or contradicting the\nprinciple; whereas the absolute character of theological doctrine was\nincompatible with concession. The rules of morality should be general\nand comprehensive; but in their practical application exceptions have\noften to be made. By no philosophy but the Positive can these two\nconditions be reconciled.\n\n [Perpetual widowhood]\n\nTo the spirit of anarchy, however, Positivism yields nothing. The unity\nessential to marriage, it renders more complete than ever. It develops\nthe principle of monogamy, by inculcating, not as a legal institution,\nbut as moral duty, the perpetuity of widowhood. Affection so firmly\nconcentrated has always been regarded with respect even on man\u2019s side.\nBut hitherto no religion has had sufficient purity or influence to\nsecure its adoption. Positivism, however, from the completeness of its\nsynthesis, and from the fact that its rules are invariably based on the\nlaws of nature, will gain such influence, and we find little difficulty\nin inducing all natures of delicate feeling to accept this additional\nobligation. It follows from the very principle which to the Positivist\nis the object of all marriage, the raising and purifying of the heart.\nUnity of the tie which is already recognized as necessary in life, is\nnot less so in death. Constancy in widowhood was once common among\nwomen; and if its moral beauty is less appreciated now, it is because\nall systematic morality has been forgotten. But it is none the less,\nas careful study of human nature will show, a most precious source of\nmoral good, and one which is not beyond the reach of nobler natures,\neven in their youth. Voluntary widowhood, while it offers all the\nadvantages which chastity can confer on the intellectual and physical\nas well as on the moral nature, is yet free from the moral dangers\nof celibacy. Constant adoration of one whom Death has implanted\nmore visibly and deeply on the memory, leads all high natures, and\nespecially philosophers, to give themselves more unreservedly to the\nservice of Humanity; and thus their public life is animated by the\nennobling influence of their innermost feelings. Alike from a sense of\ntheir own truest happiness and from devotion to public duty, they will\nbe led to this result.\n\nDeep as is the satisfaction in this prolongation of the sacredness\nof marriage, it may be carried by those who recognize its value yet\nfurther. As the death of one did not destroy the bond, so neither\nshould the death of both. Let, then, those whom death could not divide\nbe laid in the same grave together. A promise of this solemn act of\nperpetuation might be given beforehand, when the organs of public\nopinion judged it merited. A man would find a new motive for public\nexertion, if it were felt to be a pledge that the memory of her whom he\nloved should be for ever coupled with his own. We have a few instances\nwhere this union of memories has taken place spontaneously, as in\nthe case of Laura and Petrarch, and of Dante and Beatrice. Yet these\ninstances are so exceptional, that they hardly help us to realize\nthe full value of the institution proposed. There is no reason for\nlimiting it to cases of extraordinary genius. In the more healthy state\nof society to which we are tending, where private and public life\nwill be far more closely connected than they have been hitherto, this\nrecompense of service may be given to all who have deserved it, by\nthose who have come within their circle of influence.\n\nSuch, then, are the consolations which Positivist sympathy can\ngive. They leave no cause to regret the visionary hopes held out by\nChristianity, hopes which now are as enfeebling to the heart as to\nthe intellect. Here, as in all other respects, the moral superiority\nof Positivism is shown, for the comfort which it gives to the bereaved\nimplies a strengthening of the tie. Christian consolation, of which\nso much has been said, rather encourages a second union. By so doing\nit seriously impairs the value of the institution; for a division of\naffection arises, which indeed seems hardly compatible with the vague\nutopia of a future life. The institutions of perpetual widowhood and of\nunion in the tomb have found no place in any previous system, though\nboth were wanting to make monogamy complete. Here, as elsewhere, the\nbest reply which the new philosophy can give to ignorant prejudice\nor malignant calumny, is to take new steps forward in the moral\nadvancement of Man.\n\nThus the theory of marriage, as set forward by the Positivist, becomes\ntotally independent of any physical motive. It is regarded by him as\nthe most powerful instrument of moral education; and therefore as the\nbasis of public or individual welfare. It is no overstrained enthusiasm\nwhich leads us to elevate the moral purity of marriage. We do so\nfrom rigorous examination of the facts of human nature. All the best\nresults, whether personal or social, of marriage may follow, when the\nunion, though more impassioned, is as chaste as that of brother and\nsister. The sexual instinct has no doubt something to do in most cases\nwith the first formation of the passion; but it is not necessary in\nall cases to gratify the instinct. Abstinence, in cases where there is\nreal ground for it on both sides, will but serve to strengthen mutual\naffection.\n\n [Woman\u2019s mission as a mother]\n\nWe have examined the position of Woman as a wife, without supposing her\nto be a mother. We shall find that maternity, while it extends her\nsphere of moral influence, does not alter its nature.\n\nAs a mother, no less than as a wife, her position will be improved\nby Positivism. She will have, almost exclusively, the direction of\nhousehold education. Public education given subsequently, will be\nlittle but a systematic development of that which has been previously\ngiven at home.\n\n [Education of children\n belongs to mothers.\n They only can guide the\n development of character]\n\nFor it is a fundamental principle that education, in the normal\ncondition of society, must be entrusted to the spiritual power; and\nin the family the spiritual power is represented by Woman. There are\nstrong prejudices against entrusting the education of children to\nmothers: prejudices springing from the revolutionary spirit of modern\ntimes. Since the close of the Middle Ages, the tendency has been to\nplace the intellect above the heart. We have neglected the moral side\nof education, and I have given undue importance to its intellectual\nside. But Positivism having superseded this revolutionary phase by\ndemonstrating the preponderance of the heart over the intellect, moral\neducation will resume its proper place. Certainly the present mode of\ninstruction is not adopted for Woman\u2019s teaching. But their influence\nover the education of the future will be even greater than it was in\nthe Middle Ages. For in the first place, in every part of it, moral\nconsiderations will be paramount; and moreover, until puberty, nothing\nwill be studied continuously except Art and Poetry. The knights of old\ntimes were usually brought up in this way under feminine guidance, and\non them most assuredly it had no enervating influence. The training can\nhardly be supposed less adapted to a pacific than to a warlike state of\nsociety. For instruction, theoretical and practical, as distinguished\nfrom education, masters are no doubt necessary. But moral education\nwill be left entirely to women, until the time arrives for systematic\nteaching of moral science in the years immediately preceding majority.\nHere the philosopher is necessary. But the chief duties of the\nphilosopher lie with adults; his aim being to recall them, individually\nor collectively, to principles impressed on them in childhood, and to\nenforce the right application of these principles to special cases as\nthey may arise. That part of education which has the greatest influence\non life, what may be called the spontaneous training of the feelings,\nbelongs entirely to the mother. Hence it is, as I have already\nobserved, of the greatest importance to allow the pupil to remain with\nhis family, and to do away with the monastic seclusion of our public\nschools.\n\nThe peculiar fitness of women for inculcating these elementary\nprinciples of morality is a truth which every true philosopher will\nfully recognize. Women, having stronger sympathies than men, must\nbe better able to call out sympathies in others. Men of good sense\nhave always felt it more important to train the heart than the head;\nand this is the view adopted by Positive Philosophy. There is a\ndanger of exaggerating the importance of system and of forgetting\nthe conditions on which its utility depends; but the Positivist is\npreserved from this danger by the peculiar reality of his philosophy.\nIn morals, even more than in other subjects, we can only systematize\nwhat has existed previously without system. The feelings must first\nbe stimulated to free and direct action, before we attempt to bring\nthem under philosophic discipline. And this process, which begins with\nbirth, and lasts during the whole period of physical growth, should\nbe left for women to superintend. So specially are they adapted for\nit, that failing the mother, a female friend, if well chosen, and if\nshe can make herself sufficiently a member of the family, will in most\ncases do better than the father himself. The importance of the subject\ncan only be appreciated by minds dominated, as women\u2019s minds are, by\nfeeling. Women can see, what men can seldom see, that most actions, and\ncertainly the actions of youth and childhood, ought not to be judged\nin themselves so much as by the tendencies which they show or by the\nhabits to which they lead. Viewed with reference to their influence\non character, no actions are indifferent. The simplest events in a\nchild\u2019s life may serve as an occasion for enforcing the fundamental\nprinciple by which the early as well as later stages of Positivist\neducation should be directed; the strengthening of Social Feeling,\nthe weakening of Self-love. In fact, actions of an unimportant kind\nare precisely those in which it is easiest to appreciate the feelings\nwhich prompted them; since the mind of the observer, not being occupied\nwith the consequences of such actions, is more free to examine their\nsource. Moreover, it is only by teaching the child to do right in small\nthings that he can be trained for the hard inward struggle that lies\nbefore him in life; the struggle to bring the selfish instincts more\nand more completely under the control of his higher sympathies. In\nthese respects the best tutor, however sympathetic his nature, will be\nalways far inferior to a good mother. A mother may often not be able to\nexplain the reason of the principle on which she acts, but the wisdom\nof her plans will generally show itself in the end. Without formal\nteaching, she will take every opportunity of showing her children, as\nno other instructor could show them, the joy that springs from generous\nfeelings, and the misery of yielding to selfishness.\n\nFrom the relation of mother we return by a natural transition to\nWoman\u2019s position as a wife. The mother, though her authority of course\ntends to decrease, continues to superintend the growth of character\nuntil the ordinary age of marriage. Up to that time feminine influence\nover Man has been involuntary on his part. By marriage he enters into\na voluntary engagement of subordination to Woman for the rest of his\nlife. Thus he completes his moral education. Destined himself for\naction, he finds his highest happiness in honourable submission to one\nin whom the dominant principle is affection.\n\nPositivism holds out to woman a most important sphere of public and\nprivate duty. This sphere, as we may now see, is nothing but a larger\nand more systematic development of the qualities by which she is\ncharacterized. Her mission is so uniform in its nature and so clearly\ndefined, that there seems hardly room for much uncertainty as to her\nproper social position. It is a striking instance of the rule which\napplies universally to all human effort; namely, that the order of\nthings instituted by man ought to be simply a consolidation and\nimprovement of the natural order.\n\n [Modern sophisms about\n Women\u2019s rights. The\n domesticity of her life\n follows from the principle\n of Separation of Powers]\n\nIn all ages of transition, as in our own, there have been false and\nsophistical views of the social position of Woman. But we find it\nto be a natural law that Woman should pass the greater part of her\nlife in the family; and this law has never been affected to any\nimportant extent. It has always been accepted instinctively, though\nthe sophistical arguments against it have never yet been adequately\nrefuted. The institution of the family has survived the subtle attacks\nof Greek metaphysics, which then were in all the vigour of their\nyouth, and which were acting on minds that had no systematic principles\nto oppose to them. Therefore, profound as the intellectual anarchy of\nthe present day may be, we need not be seriously alarmed when we see\nthat nothing worse comes of it than shallow plagiarisms from ancient\nutopias, against which the vigorous satire of Aristophanes was quite\nenough to rouse general indignation. True, there is a more complete\nabsence of social principles now, than when the world was passing\nfrom Polytheism to Monotheism; but our intellectual powers are more\ndeveloped than they were then, and in moral culture our superiority\nis even greater. Women in those times were too degraded to offer\neven the opposition of their silence to the pedants who professed\nto be taking up their cause; the only resistance offered was of a\npurely intellectual kind. But happily in modern times the women of\nthe West have been free; and have consequently been able to manifest\nsuch unmistakable aversion for these ideas, and for the want of moral\ndiscipline which gives rise to them, that, though still unrefuted\nphilosophically, their mischievous effects have been neutralized.\nNothing but women\u2019s antipathy has prevented the practical outrages\nwhich seem logically to follow from these subversive principles. Among\nour privileged classes the danger is aggravated by indolence; moreover,\nthe possession of wealth has a bad influence on women\u2019s moral nature.\nYet even here the evil is not really very deep or widely spread. Men\nhave never been seriously perverted, and women still less so, by\nflattery of their bad propensities. The really formidable temptations\nare those which act upon our better instincts, and give them a wrong\ndirection. Schemes which are utterly offensive to female delicacy will\nnever really be adopted, even by the wealthier classes, who are less\naverse to them than others. The repugnance shown to them by the people,\nwith whom the mischief that they would cause would be irreparable, is\nfar more decided. The life which working people lead makes it very\nclear to both sexes what the proper position of each should be. Thus\nit will be in the very class where the preservation of the institution\nof the family is of the greatest importance, that Positivists will\nfind the least difficulty in establishing their theory of the social\nposition of women, as consequent on the sphere of public and private\nduty which has been here assigned to them.\n\nLooking at the relation of this theory to other parts of the Positive\nsystem, we shall see that it follows from the great principle which\ndominates every other social problem, the principle of separating\nspiritual and temporal power. That Woman\u2019s life should be concentrated\nin her family, and that even there her influence should be that\nof persuasion rather than that of command, is but an extension of\nthe principle which excludes the spiritual power from political\nadministration. Women, as the purest and most spontaneous of the moral\nforces of society, are bound to fulfil with rigorous exactness all the\nconditions which the exercise of moral force demands. Effectually to\nperform their mission of controlling and guiding our affections, they\nmust abstain altogether from the practical pursuits of the stronger\nsex. Such abstinence, even when the arrangements of society may leave\nit optional, is still more desirable in their case than in the case of\nphilosophers. Active life, incompatible as it is with the clearness and\nbreadth of philosophic speculation, is even more injurious to delicacy\nof feeling, which is women\u2019s highest claim to our respect and the true\nsecret of their influence. The philosophic spirit is incompatible with\na position of practical authority, because such a position occupies\nthe mind with questions of detail. But to purity of feeling it is\neven more dangerous, because it strengthens the instincts of power\nand of gain. And for women it would be harder to avoid the danger of\nsuch a position than for men. Abounding as they do in sympathy, they\nare generally deficient in energy, and are therefore less able to\nwithstand corrupting influences. The more we examine this important\nsubject, the clearer it becomes that the present condition of women\ndoes not hamper them in their true work; that, on the contrary, it is\nwell calculated to develop and even improve their highest qualities.\nThe natural arrangements of society in this as in other respects are\nfar less faulty than certain blind declaimers would have us believe.\nBut for the existence of strong material forces, moral force would\nsoon deteriorate, because its distinctive purpose would be gone.\nPhilosophers and proletaries would soon lose their intellectual and\nmoral superiority by the acquisition of power. On women its effect\nwould be still more disastrous. From instances in the upper classes\nof society, where wealth gives them independence, and sometimes\nunfortunately even power, we see but too clearly what the consequences\nwould be. And this is why we have to look to the poorer classes for the\nhighest type of womanly perfection. With the people sympathy is better\ncultivated, and has a greater influence upon life. Wealth has more to\ndo with the moral degradation of women among the privileged classes\nthan even idleness and dissipation.\n\n [The position of the sexes\n tends to differentiation\n rather than identity]\n\nProgress, in this respect as in every other, is only a more complete\ndevelopment of the pre-existing Order. Equality in the position of the\ntwo sexes is contrary to their nature, and no tendency to it has at\nany time been exhibited. All history assures us that with the growth\nof society the peculiar features of each sex have become not less but\nmore distinct. By Catholic Feudalism the social condition of women in\nWestern Europe was raised to a far higher level. But it took away from\nthem the priestly functions which they had held under Polytheism; a\nreligion in which the priesthood was more occupied with Art than with\nScience. So too with the gradual decline of the principle of Caste,\nwomen have been excluded more and more rigidly from royalty and from\nevery other kind of political authority. Again, there is a visible\ntendency towards the removal of women from all industrial occupations,\neven from those which might seem best suited to them. And thus female\nlife, instead of becoming independent of the Family, is being more and\nmore concentrated in it; while at the same time their proper sphere of\nmoral influence is constantly extending. The two tendencies so far from\nbeing opposed, are inseparably connected.\n\nWithout discussing the absurd and retrograde schemes which have\nbeen recently put forward on the subject, there is one remark which\nmay serve to illustrate the value of the order which now exists.\nIf women were to obtain that equality in the affairs of life which\ntheir so-called champions are claiming for them without their wish,\nnot only would they suffer morally, but their social position would\nbe endangered. They would be subject in almost every occupation to\na degree of competition which they would not be able to sustain.\nMoreover, by rivalry in the pursuits of life, mutual affection between\nthe sexes would be corrupted at its source.\n\n [Woman to be maintained by\n Man]\n\nLeaving these subversive dreams, we find a natural principle which, by\ndetermining the practical obligations of the Active to the Sympathetic\nsex, averts this danger. It is a principle which no philosophy but\nPositivism has been sufficiently real and practical to bring forward\nsystematically for general acceptance. It is no new invention, however,\nbut a universal tendency, confirmed by careful study of the whole\npast history of Man. The principle is, that Man should provide for\nWoman. It is a natural law of the human race; a law connected with\nthe essentially domestic character of female life. We find it in the\nrudest forms of social life; and with every step in the progress of\nsociety its adoption becomes more extensive and complete. A still\nlarger application of this fundamental principle will meet all the\nmaterial difficulties under which women are now labouring. All social\nrelations, and especially the question of wages, will be affected by\nit. The tendency to it is spontaneous; but it also follows from the\nhigh position which Positivism has assigned to Woman as the sympathetic\nelement in the spiritual power. The intellectual class, in the same\nway, has to be supported by the practical class, in order to have its\nwhole time available for the special duties imposed upon it. But in the\ncase of women, the obligation of the other sex is still more sacred,\nbecause the sphere of duty in which protection for them is required,\nis the home. The obligation to provide for the intellectual class,\naffects society as a whole; but the maintenance of women is, with few\nexceptions, a personal obligation. Each individual should consider\nhimself bound to maintain the woman he has chosen to be his partner\nin life. There are cases, however, in which men should be considered\ncollectively responsible for the support of the other sex. Women who\nare without husband or parents should have their maintenance guaranteed\nby society; and this not merely from compassion for their dependent\nposition, but with the view of enabling them to render public service\nof the greatest moral value.\n\nThe direction, then, of progress in the social condition of woman is\nthis: to render her life more and more domestic; to diminish as far\nas possible the burden of out-door labour; and so to fit her more\ncompletely for her special office of educating our moral nature.\nAmong the privileged classes it is already a recognized rule that\nwomen should be spared all laborious exertion. It is the one point\nin the relations of the sexes in which the working classes would do\nwell to imitate the habits of their employers. In every other respect\nthe people of Western Europe have a higher sense of their duties\nto women than the upper classes. Indeed there are few of them who\nwould not be ashamed of the barbarity of subjecting women to their\npresent burdensome occupations, if the present state of our industrial\nsystem allowed of its abolition. But it is chiefly among the higher\nand wealthier classes that we find those degrading and very often\nfraudulent bargains, connected with unscrupulous interference of\nparents in the question of marriage, which are so humiliating to one\nsex and so corrupting to the other. Among the working classes the\npractice of giving dowries is almost extinct; and as women\u2019s true\nmission becomes more recognized, and as choice in marriage becomes less\nrestricted, this relic of barbarism, with all its debasing results,\nwill rapidly die out. With this view the application of our theory\nshould be carried one step further. Women should not be allowed to\ninherit. If inheritance be allowed, the prohibition of dowries would\nbe evaded in a very obvious manner by discounting the reversionary\ninterest. Since women are to be exempt from the labour of production,\ncapital, that is to say, the instruments of labour produced by each\ngeneration for the benefit of the next, should revert to men. This view\nof inheritance, so far from making men a privileged class, places them\nunder heavy responsibilities. It is not from women that any serious\nopposition to it will proceed. Wise education will show them its value\nto themselves personally, as a safeguard against unworthy suitors. But,\nimportant as the rule is, it should not be legally enforced until it\nhas become established on its own merits as a general custom, which\nevery one has felt to conduce to the healthy organization of the Family\nas here described.\n\n [The education of women\n should be identical with\n that of men]\n\nComing now to the subject of female education, we have only to make a\nfurther application of the theory which has guided us hitherto.\n\nSince the vocation assigned by our theory to women is that of educating\nothers, it is clear that the educational system which we have proposed\nin the last chapter for the working classes, applies to them as well\nas to the other sex with very slight alterations. Unencumbered as it\nis with specialities, it will be found, even in its more scientific\nparts, as suitable to the sympathetic element of the moderating\npower, as to the synergic element. We have spoken of the necessity\nof diffusing sound historical views among the working classes; and\nthe same necessity applies to women; for social sympathy can never be\nperfectly developed, without a sense of the continuity of the Past,\nas well as of the solidarity of the Present. Since, then, both sexes\nalike need historical instruction as a basis for the systematization of\nmoral truth, both should alike pass through the scientific training\nwhich prepares the way for social studies, and which moreover has as\nintrinsic a value for women as for men. Again, since the first or\nspontaneous stage of education is entirely to be left to women, it is\nmost desirable that they should themselves have passed through the\nsecond or systematic stage. The only department with which they need\nnot concern themselves, is what is called professional education.\nBut this, as I have before observed, is not susceptible of regular\norganization. Professional skill can only be acquired by careful\npractice and experience, resting upon a sound basis of theory. In all\nother respects women, philosophers, and working men will receive the\nsame education.\n\nBut while I would place the sexes on a level in this respect, I do\nnot take the view of my eminent predecessor Condorcet, that they\nshould be taught together. On moral grounds, which of course are the\nmost important consideration, it is obvious that such a plan would be\nequally prejudicial to both. In the church, in the club, in the salon,\nthey may associate freely at every period of life. But at school such\nintercourse would be premature; it would check the natural development\nof character, not to say that it would obviously have an unsettling\ninfluence upon study. Until the feelings on both sides are sufficiently\nmatured, it is of the greatest importance that the relations of the two\nsexes should not be too intimate, and that they should be superintended\nby the watchful eye of their mothers.\n\nAs, however, the subjects of study are to be the same for both, the\nnecessity of separating the sexes does not imply that there should be\nspecial teachers for women. Not to speak of the increased expenditure\nthat would thus be incurred, it would inevitably lower the standard\nof female education. It would always be presumed that their teachers\nwere men of inferior attainments. To ensure that the instruction given\nis the same for both sexes, the instructors must be the same, and must\ngive their lectures alternately to each sex. These conditions are\nperfectly compatible with the scheme described in the last chapter. It\nwas there mentioned that each philosopher would be expected to give\none, or, in some cases, two lectures every week. Now supposing this\nwere doubled, it would still come far short of the intolerable burdens\nwhich are imposed upon teachers in the present day. Moreover, as the\nPositivist educator will pass successively through the seven stages of\nscientific instruction, he will be able so to regulate his work as to\navoid wearisome repetition of the same lectures in each year. Besides,\nthe distinguished men to whom our educational system will be entrusted\nwill soon discover that their two audiences require some difference in\nthe manner of teaching, and that this may be done without in any way\nlowering the uniform standard which their method and their doctrines\nrequire.\n\nBut independently of the importance to female education of this\nidentity of teachers, it will react beneficially on the intellectual\nand moral character of the philosopher who teaches. It will preclude\nhim from entering into useless details, and will keep him involuntarily\nto the broad principles of his subject. By coming into contact\nsimultaneously with two natures, in one of which thought, and in the\nother emotion, is predominant, he will gain clearer insight into the\ngreat principle of subordinating the intellect to the heart. The\nobligation of teaching both sexes will complete that universality\nof mind which is to be required of the new school of philosophers.\nTo treat with equal ability of all the various orders of scientific\nconceptions, and to interest two audiences of so different a character,\nis a task which will demand the highest personal qualifications.\nHowever, as the number required by the conditions is not excessive,\nit will not be impossible to find men fit for the purpose, as soon as\nthe proper means are taken to procure their services, and to guarantee\ntheir material subsistence. It must be borne in mind, too, that the\ncorporation of teachers is not to be recruited from any one nation for\nitself, but from the whole of Western Europe; so that the Positivist\neducator will change his residence, when required, even more frequently\nthan the priests of the Middle Ages. Putting these considerations\ntogether, we shall find that Positivist education for both sexes may be\norganized on a sufficient scale for the whole of Western Europe, with\nless than the useless, or worse than useless, expenditure incurred by\nthe clergy of the Anglican church. This would give each functionary\nan adequate maintenance, though none of them would be degraded by\nwealth. A body of twenty thousand philosophers would be enough now,\nand probably would always suffice, for the spiritual wants of the five\nWestern nations. This would imply the establishment of the septennial\nsystem of instruction in two thousand stations. The influence of women\nand of working men will never become so systematic as to enable them\nto dispense with philosophic assistance altogether. But in proportion\nas they become more effectually incorporated as elements of the\nspiritual power, the necessity of enlarging the purely speculative\nclass will diminish. Under theological systems it has been far too\nnumerous. The privilege of living in comfort without productive labour\nwill be ultimately so rare and so dearly earned, that no rational\nground of objection to it will be left. It will be generally felt\nthat the cost of maintaining these philosophic teachers, like that of\nmaintaining women, is no real burden to the productive classes; on the\ncontrary, that it conduces to their highest interest, by ensuring the\nperformance of intellectual and moral functions which are the noblest\ncharacteristics of Humanity.\n\nIt appears, then, that the primary principle laid down at the\nbeginning of this chapter enables us to solve all the problems that\noffer themselves on the subject of Woman. Her function in society is\ndetermined by the constitution of her nature. She is spontaneously\nthe organ of Feeling, on which the unity of human nature entirely\ndepends. And she constitutes the purest and most natural element of the\nmoderating power; which, while avowing its own subordination to the\nmaterial forces of society, purposes to direct them to higher uses. As\nmother and as wife, it is her office to conduct the moral education of\nHumanity. In order the more perfectly to fulfil this mission, her life\nmust be connected even more closely than it has been with the Family.\nAt the same time she must participate, to the full extent that is\npossible, in the general system of instruction.\n\n [Women\u2019s privileges. Their\n mission is in itself a\n privilege]\n\nA few remarks on the privileges which the fulfilment of this vocation\nwill bring, will complete this part of my subject.\n\nWomen\u2019s mission is a striking illustration of the truth that happiness\nconsists in doing the work for which we are naturally fitted. That\nmission is always the same; it is summed up in one word, Love. But\nLove is a work in which there can never be too many workers; it grows\nby co-operation; it has nothing to fear from competition. Women are\ncharged with the education of Sympathy, the source of human unity;\nand their highest happiness is reached when they have the full\nconsciousness of their vocation, and are free to follow it. It is the\nadmirable feature of their social mission, that it invites them to\ncultivate qualities which are natural to them; to call into exercise\nemotions which all allow to be the most pleasurable. All that is\nrequired for them in a better organization of society are certain\nimprovements in their external condition. They must be relieved from\nout-door labour; and other means must be taken to prevent their moral\ninfluence from being impaired. Both objects are contemplated in the\nmaterial, intellectual, and moral ameliorations which Positivism is\ndestined to effect in female life.\n\n [They will receive honour\n and worship from men]\n\nBut besides the pleasure inherent in their vocation, Positivism offers\na recompense for their services, which Catholic Feudalism foreshadowed\nbut could not realize. As men become more and more grateful for the\nblessing of their moral influence, they will give expression to this\nfeeling in a systematic form. In a word the new doctrine will institute\nthe Worship of Woman, publicly and privately, in a far more perfect\nway than has ever before been possible. It is the first permanent step\ntowards the worship of Humanity; which, as the concluding chapter\nof this introductory work will show, is the central principle of\nPositivism, viewed either as a Philosophy or as a Polity.\n\n [Development of mediaeval\n chivalry]\n\nOur ancestors in chivalrous times made noble efforts in this\ndirection, which, except by women, are now no longer appreciated.\nBut these efforts, however admirable, were inadequate; partly owing\nto the military spirit of society in those times, partly because\ntheir religious doctrines had not a sufficiently social character.\nNevertheless, they have left memories which will not perish. The\nrefinement of life in Western Europe is in great part due to them,\nalthough much of it is already effaced by the anarchy of the present\ntime.\n\nChivalry, if we are to believe the negative philosophers of the last\ncentury, can never revive; because the religious beliefs with which\nit was connected have become obsolete. But the connexion was never\nvery profound, and there is no reason whatever for its continuance.\nFar too much has been made of it by recent apologists for Catholicism;\nwho, while laying great stress on the sanction which Theology gave\nto Chivalry, have failed to appreciate the sympathies to which this\nadmirable institution is really due. The real source of Chivalry lies\nmost unquestionably in the feudal spirit. Theological sanction for it\nwas afterwards sought for, as the only systematic basis that offered\nitself at that time. But the truth is that Theology and Chivalry were\nhardly compatible. Theology fixed men\u2019s thoughts upon a visionary\nfuture; Chivalry concentrated his energies upon the world around him.\nThe knight of the Middle Ages had always to choose between his God and\nhis Lady; and could therefore never attain that concentrated unity of\npurpose, without which the full result of his mission, so generously\nundertaken, could never be realized.\n\nPlaced as we are now, near the close of the revolutionary period, we\nare beginning to see that Chivalry is not destined to extinction; that,\non the contrary, when modern life has assumed its normal character,\nits influence will be greater than ever, because it will operate on a\nmore pacific society, and will be based on a more practical religion.\nFor Chivalry satisfies an essential want of society, a want which\nbecomes more urgent as civilization advances; it institutes a voluntary\ncombination of the strong for the protection of the weak. The period of\ntransition from the offensive military system of Rome to the defensive\nsystem of Feudalism, was naturally the time of its first appearance,\nand it received the sanction of the religion then dominant. But society\nis now entering upon a period of permanent peace; and when this, the\nmost striking political feature of modern times, has become firmly\nestablished, the influence of Chivalry will be greater than ever.\nIts procedure will be different, because the modes of oppression are\nhappily not now what they were formerly. The instruments of material\nforce are now not arms, but riches. It is no longer the person that is\nattacked, but his means of subsistence. The advantages of the change\nare obvious: the danger is less serious, and protection from it is\neasier and more effectual. But it will always remain most desirable\nthat protectors should come forward, and that they should form an\norganized association. The destructive instinct will always show itself\nin various ways, wherever there are the means of indulging it. And\ntherefore as an adjunct to the spiritual organization, Positivism will\nencourage a systematic manifestation of chivalrous feeling among the\nleaders of industry. Those among them who feel animated with the noble\nspirit of the heroes of the Middle Ages, will devote not their sword,\nbut their wealth, their time, and, if need be, their whole energies\nto the defence of the oppressed in all classes. The objects of their\ngenerosity will principally be found, as in the Middle Ages, among the\nclasses specially exposed to material suffering, that is to say, among\nwomen, philosophers, and working men. It would be strange indeed for a\nsystem like Positivism, the main object of which is to strengthen the\nsocial spirit, not to appropriate the institution which is the noblest\nproduct of that spirit.\n\nSo far, then, the restoration of Chivalry is merely a reconstruction\nof the mediaeval institution in a shape adapted to the altered state\nof ideas and feelings. In modern as in mediaeval times, devotion of\nthe strong to the weak follows as a natural consequence from the\nsubordination of Politics to Morals. Now, as then, the spiritual\npower will be nobly seconded by members of the governing class in the\nattempt to bring that class to a stricter sense of social duty. But\nbesides this, Feudal Chivalry had a deeper and more special purpose in\nreference to women. And in this respect the superiority of Positivism\nis even more complete and obvious.\n\nFeudalism introduced for the first time the worship of Woman. But\nin this it met with little support from Catholicism, and was in\nmany respects thwarted by it. The habits of Christianity were in\nthemselves adverse to real tenderness of heart; they only strengthened\nit indirectly, by promoting one of the indispensable conditions of\ntrue affection, purity of life. In all other respects Chivalry was\nconstantly opposed by the Catholic system; which was so austere and\nanti-social, that it could not sanction marriage except as an infirmity\nwhich it was necessary to tolerate, but which was hazardous to personal\nsalvation. Even its rules of purity, valuable as they were, were often\nweakened by interested motives which seriously impaired their value.\nConsequently, notwithstanding all the noble and long-continued efforts\nof our mediaeval ancestors, the institution of the worship of Woman was\nvery imperfectly effected, especially in its relation to public life.\nWhatever Catholic apologists may say, there is every reason to believe\nthat if Feudalism could have arisen before the decline of Polytheism,\nthe influence of Chivalry would have been greater.\n\nIt was reserved for the more comprehensive system of Positivism, in\nwhich sound practice is always supported by sound theory, to give full\nexpression to the feeling of veneration for women. In the new religion,\ntenderness of heart is looked upon as the first of Woman\u2019s attributes.\nBut purity is not neglected. On the contrary its true source and its\nessential value, as the first condition of happiness and of moral\ngrowth, are pointed out more distinctly than before. The shallow and\nsophistical views of marriage maintained in these unsettled times by\nmen of narrow minds and coarse feelings, will be easily refuted by\na more careful study of human nature. Even the obstacles presented\nby scientific materialism will rapidly disappear before the spread\nof Positivist morality. A physician of great sagacity, Hufeland, has\nremarked, with truth, that the well-known vigour of the knights of\nold times was a sufficient answer to men who talked of the physical\ndangers of continence. Positivism, dealing with this question in all\nits aspects, teaches that while the primary reason for insisting on\npurity is that it is essential to depth of affection, it has as close\na connexion with the physical and intellectual improvement of the\nindividual and the race as with our moral progress.\n\nPositivism then, as the whole tendency of this chapter indicates,\nencourages, on intellectual as well as on moral grounds, full and\nsystematic expression of the feeling of veneration for Women, in public\nas well as in private life, collectively as well as individually.\nBorn to love and to be loved, relieved from the burdens of practical\nlife, free in the sacred retirement of their homes, the women of the\nWest will receive from Positivists the tribute of deep and sincere\nadmiration which their life inspires. They will feel no scruple in\naccepting their position as spontaneous priestesses of Humanity; they\nwill fear no longer the rivalry of a vindictive Deity. From childhood\neach of us will be taught to regard their sex as the principal source\nof human happiness and improvement, whether in public life or in\nprivate.\n\nThe treasures of affection which our ancestors wasted upon mystical\nobjects, and which these revolutionary times ignore, will then\nbe carefully preserved and directed to their proper purpose. The\nenervating influence of chimerical beliefs will have passed away; and\nmen in all the vigour of their energies, feeling themselves the masters\nof the known world, will feel it their highest happiness to submit with\ngratitude to the beneficent power of womanly sympathy. In a word, Man\nwill in those days kneel to Woman, and to Woman alone.\n\nThe source from which these reverential feelings for the sympathetic\nsex proceed, is a clear appreciation in the other sex of benefits\nreceived, and a spirit of deep thankfulness for them. The Positivist\nwill never forget that moral perfection, the primary condition of\npublic and private happiness, is principally due to the influence of\nWoman over Man, first as mother, then as wife. Such a conviction cannot\nfail to arouse feelings of loving veneration for those with whom,\nfrom their position in society, he is in no danger of rivalry in the\naffairs of life. When the mission of woman is better understood, and is\ncarried out more fully, she will be regarded by Man as the most perfect\nimpersonation of Humanity.\n\n [The practice of Prayer, so\n far from disappearing, is\n purified and strengthened in\n Positive religion]\n\nOriginating in spontaneous feelings of gratitude, the worship of Woman,\nwhen it has assumed a more systematic shape, will be valued for its\nown sake as a new instrument of happiness and moral growth. Inert as\nthe tender sympathies are in Man, it is most desirable to strengthen\nthem by such exercise as the public and private institution of this\nworship will afford. And here it is that Positivists will find all the\nelevating influences which Catholicism derived from Prayer.\n\nIt is a common but very palpable error to imagine that Prayer is\ninseparable from the chimerical motives of self-interest in which it\nfirst originated. In Catholicism there was always a tendency to rise\nabove these motives, so far at least as the principles of theology\nadmitted. From St. Augustine downwards, all the nobler spirits have\nfelt more and more strongly, notwithstanding the self-absorbing\ntendencies of Christian doctrine, that Prayer did not necessarily imply\npetition. When sounder views of human nature have become prevalent,\nthe value of this important function will be more clearly appreciated;\nand it will ultimately become of greater importance than ever, because\nfounded on a truer principle. In the normal state of Humanity, the\nmoral efficacy of Prayer will no longer be impaired by thoughts of\npersonal recompense. It will be simply a solemn out-pouring, whether\nin private or in public, of men\u2019s nobler feelings, inspiring them with\nlarger and more comprehensive thoughts. As a daily practice, it is\ninculcated by Positivism as the best preservative against the selfish\nand narrow views which are so apt to arise in the ordinary avocations\nof life. To men its value is even greater than to women; their life\nbeing less favourable to large views and general sympathies, it is the\nmore important to revive them at regular periods.\n\nBut Prayer would be of little value unless the mind could form a\nclear conception of its object. The worship of Woman satisfies this\ncondition, and is so far of greater efficacy than the worship of\nGod. True, the ultimate object of Positivist Prayer, as shown in\nthe concluding chapter of this volume, is Humanity. But some of its\nbest moral effects would hardly be realized, if it were at once and\nexclusively directed to an object so difficult to conceive clearly.\nIt is possible that Women with their stronger sympathies may be able\nto reach this stage without intermediate steps. However this may be,\nmen certainly would not be able to do so; even the intellectual class,\nwith all its powers of generalization, would find it impossible. The\nworship of Woman, begun in private, and afterwards publicly celebrated,\nis necessary in man\u2019s case to prepare him for any effectual worship of\nHumanity.\n\nNo one can be so unhappy as not to be able to find some woman worthy\nof his peculiar love, whether in the relation of wife or of mother;\nsome one who in his solitary prayer may be present to him as a fixed\nobject of devotion. Nor will such devotion, as might be thought,\ncease with death; rather, when its object has been rightly chosen,\ndeath strengthens it by making it more pure. The principle upon which\nPositivism insists so strongly, the union of the Present with the Past,\nand even with the Future, is not limited to the life of Society. It is\na doctrine which unites all individuals and all generations; and when\nit has become more familiar to us, it will stimulate every one to call\nhis dearest memories to life; the spirit of the system being that the\nprivate life of the very humblest citizen has a close relation to his\npublic duty. We all know how intellectual culture enables us to live\nwith our great predecessors of the Middle Ages and of Antiquity, almost\nas we should do with absent friends. And if intellect can do so much,\nwill it not be far easier for the strong passion of Love to effect\nthis ideal resurrection? We have already many instances where whole\nnations have shown strong sympathies or antipathies to great historical\nnames, especially when their influence was still sensibly felt. There\nis no reason why a private life should not produce the same effect\nupon those who have been brought into contact with it. Moral culture\nhas been conducted hitherto on such unsatisfactory principles, that\nwe can hardly form an adequate notion of its results when Positivism\nhas regenerated it, and has concentrated the affections as well as\nthe thoughts of Man upon human life. To live with the dead is the\npeculiar privilege of Humanity, a privilege which will extend as our\nconceptions widen and our thoughts become more pure. Under Positivism\nthe impulse to it will become far stronger, and it will be recognized\nas a systematic principle in private as well as in public life. Even\nthe Future is not excluded from its application. We may live with those\nwho are not yet born; a thing impossible only till a true theory of\nhistory had arisen, of scope sufficient to embrace at one glance the\nwhole course of human destiny. There are numberless instances to prove\nthat the heart of Man is capable of emotions which have no outward\nbasis, except what Imagination has supplied. The familiar spirits of\nthe Polytheist, the mystical desires of the Monotheist, all point to\na general tendency in the Past, which, with our better principles,\nwe shall be able in the Future to direct to a nobler and more real\npurpose. And thus even those who may be so unfortunate as to have no\nspecial object of love need not, on that account, be precluded from\nthe act of worship: they may choose from the women of the past some\ntype adapted to their own nature. Men of powerful imagination might\neven form their own more perfect ideal, and thus open out the path\nof the future. This, indeed, is what was often done by the knights\nof chivalrous times, simple and uninstructed as they were. Surely\nthen we, with our fuller understanding and greater familiarity with\nthe Past, should be able to idealize more perfectly. But whether the\nchoice lie in the Past or in the Future, its efficacy would be impaired\nunless it remained constant to one object; and fixed principles, such\nas Positivism supplies, are needed to check the natural tendency to\nversatility of feeling.\n\n [The worship of Woman a\n preparation for the worship\n of Humanity]\n\nI have dwelt at some length upon the personal adoration of Woman under\nits real or ideal aspects, because upon it depends nearly all the moral\nvalue of any public celebration. Public assemblage in the temples of\nHumanity may strengthen and stimulate feelings of devotion, but cannot\noriginate them. Unless each worshipper has felt in his own person deep\nand reverential love for those to whom our highest affections are due,\na public service in honour of women would be nothing but a repetition\nof unmeaning formulas. But those whose daily custom it has been to\ngive expression to such feelings in secret, will gain, by assembling\ntogether, all the benefit of more intense and more exalted sympathy.\nIn my last letter to her who is for ever mine, I said: \u2018Amidst the\nheaviest anxieties which Love can bring, I have never ceased to feel\nthat the one thing essential to happiness is that the heart shall be\nalways nobly occupied\u2019.[9] And now that we are separated by Death,\ndaily experience confirms this truth, which is moreover in exact\naccordance with the Positive theory of human nature. Without personal\nexperience of Love no public celebration of it can be sincere.\n\nIn its public celebration the superiority of the new Religion is even\nmore manifest than in the private worship. A system in which the social\nspirit is uniformly preponderant, is peculiarly adapted to render\nhomage for the social services of the sympathetic sex. When the knights\nof the Middle Ages met together, they might give vent to their personal\nfeelings, and express to one another the reverence which each felt for\nhis own mistress; but farther than this they could not go. And such\npersonal feelings will never cease to be necessary. Still the principal\nobject of public celebration is to express gratitude on the part of\nthe people for the social blessings conferred by Woman, as the organ\nof that element in our nature on which its unity depends, and as the\noriginal source of moral power. In the Middle Ages such considerations\nwere impossible, for want of a rational theory embracing the whole\ncircle of social relations. Indeed the received faith was incompatible\nwith any such conception, since God in that faith occupied the place\nreally due to Humanity.\n\n [Exceptional women. Joan of\n Arc]\n\nThere are women whose career has been altogether exceptional; and\nthese, like the rest, meet with their due tribute of praise in the\nPositive system. The chief motive, doubtless, for public and private\nveneration is the mission of sympathy, which is Woman\u2019s peculiar\nvocation. But there have been remarkable instances of women whose\nlife has been one of speculation, or even, what is in most cases\nstill more foreign to their nature, of political activity. They have\nrendered real service to Humanity, and they should receive the honour\nthat is due to them. Theology, from its absolute character, could not\nmake such concessions; they would have weakened the efficiency of its\nmost important social rules. Consequently, Catholicism was compelled,\nthough at first with sincere regret, to leave some of the noblest\nwomen without commemoration. A signal instance is the Maid of Orleans,\nwhose heroism saved France in the fifteenth century. Our great king\nLouis XI applied very properly to the Pope for her canonization, and\nno objection was made to his request. Yet, practically, it was never\ncarried into effect. It was gradually forgotten; and the clergy soon\ncame to feel a sort of dislike to her memory, which reminded them\nof nothing but their own social weakness. It is easy to account for\nthis result; nor is any one really to blame for it. It was feared,\nnot without reason, that to consider Joan of Arc as a saint might\nhave the effect of spreading false and dangerous ideas of feminine\nduty. The difficulty was insuperable for any absolute system, in\nwhich to sanction the exception is to compromise the rule. But in a\nrelative system the case is different. It is even more inconsistent\nwith Positive principles than it is with Catholic, for women to lead\na military life, a life which of all others is the least compatible\nwith their proper functions. And yet Positivists will be the first to\ndo justice to this extraordinary heroine, whom theologians have been\nafraid to recognize, and whom metaphysicians, even in France, have had\nthe hardihood to insult. The anniversary of her glorious martyrdom will\nbe a solemn festival, not only for France, but for Western Europe.\nFor her work was not merely of national importance: the enslavement\nof France would have involved the loss of all the influence which\nFrance has exercised as the centre of the advanced nations of Europe.\nMoreover, as none of them are altogether clear from the disgrace of\ndetracting, as Voltaire has done, from her character, all should aid\nin the reparation of it which Positivism proposes to institute. So far\nfrom her apotheosis having an injurious effect on female character,\nit will afford an opportunity of pointing out the anomalous nature of\nher career, and the rarity of the conditions which alone could justify\nit. It is a fresh proof of the advantages accruing to Morality from\nthe relative character of Positivism, which enables it to appreciate\nexceptional cases without weakening the rules.\n\nThe subject of the worship of Woman by Man raises a question of much\ndelicacy; how to satisfy the analogous feelings of devotion in the\nother sex. We have seen its necessity for men as an intermediate step\ntowards the worship of Humanity; and women, stronger though their\nsympathies are, stand, it may be, in need of similar preparation.\nYet certainly the direction taken should be somewhat different. What\nis wanted is that each sex should strengthen the moral qualities in\nwhich it is naturally deficient. Energy is a characteristic feature of\nHumanity as well as Sympathy; as is well shown by the double meaning\nof the word _Heart_. In Man Sympathy is the weaker element, and it\nrequires constant exercise. This he gains by expression of his feelings\nof reverence for Woman. In Woman, on the other hand, the defective\nquality is Energy; so that, should any special preparation for the\nworship of Humanity be needed, it should be such as to strengthen\ncourage rather than sympathy. But my sex renders me incompetent to\nenter farther into the secret wants of Woman\u2019s heart. Theory indicates\na blank hitherto unnoticed, but does not enable me to fill it. It is a\nproblem for women themselves to solve; and I had reserved it for my\nnoble colleague, for whose premature death I would fain hope that my\nown grief may one day be shared by all.\n\nThroughout this chapter I have been keenly sensible of the philosophic\nloss resulting from our objective separation. True, I have been able\nto show that Positivism is a matter of the deepest concern to women,\nsince it incorporates them in the progressive movement of modern\ntimes. I have proved that the part allotted to them in this movement\nis one which satisfies their highest aspirations for the Family or\nfor Society. And yet I can hardly hope for much support from them\nuntil some woman shall come forward to interpret what I have said into\nlanguage more adapted to their nature and habits of thought. Till\nthen it will always be taken for granted that they are incapable even\nof understanding the new philosophy, notwithstanding all the natural\naffinities for it which I have shown that they possess.\n\nAll these difficulties had been entirely removed by the noble and\nloving friend to whom I dedicate the treatise to which this work is\nintroductory. The dedication is unusual in form, and some may think it\noverstrained. But my own fear is rather, now that five years have past,\nthat my words were too weak for the deep gratitude which I now feel for\nher elevating influence. Without it the moral aspects of Positivism\nwould have lain very long latent.\n\nClotilde de Vaux was gifted equally in mind and heart: and she had\nalready begun to feel the power of the new philosophy to raise feminine\ninfluence from the decline into which it had fallen, under the\nrevolutionary influences of modern times. Misunderstood everywhere,\neven by her own family, her nature was far too noble for bitterness.\nHer sorrows were as exceptional as they were undeserved; but her\npurity was even more rare than her sorrow; and it preserved her\nunscathed from all sophistical attacks on marriage, even before the\ntrue theory of marriage had come before her. In the only writing\nwhich she published[10], there is a beautiful remark, which to those\nwho know the history of her life is deeply affecting: \u2018Great natures\nshould always be above bringing their sorrows upon others\u2019. In this\ncharming story, written before she knew anything of Positivism, she\nexpressed herself most characteristically on the subject of Woman\u2019s\nvocation: \u2018Surely the true sphere of Woman is to provide Man with the\ncomforts and delights of home, receiving in exchange from him the means\nof subsistence earned by his labours. I would rather see the mother\nof a poor family washing her children\u2019s linen, than see her earning a\nlivelihood by her talents away from home. Of course I do not speak of\nwomen of extraordinary powers whose genius leads them out of the sphere\nof domestic duty. Such natures should have free scope given to them:\nfor great minds are kindled by the exhibition of their powers\u2019. These\nwords coming from a young lady distinguished no less for beauty than\nfor worth, showed her antipathy to the subversive ideas so prevalent in\nthe present day. But in a large work which she did not live to finish,\nshe had intended to refute the attacks upon marriage, contained in\nthe works of George Sand, to whom she was intellectually no less than\nmorally superior. Her nature was of rare endowment, moved by noble\nimpulse, and yet allowing its due influence to reason. When she was\nbeginning to study Positivism she wrote to me: \u2018No one knows better\nthan myself how weak our nature is unless it has some lofty aim beyond\nthe reach of passion\u2019. A short time afterwards, writing with all the\ngraceful freedom of friendship, she let fall a phrase of deep meaning,\nalmost unawares: \u2018Our race is one which must have duties, in order to\nform its feelings\u2019.\n\nWith such a nature my Saint Clotilde was, as may be supposed, fully\nconscious of the moral value of Positivism, though she had only one\nyear to give to its study. A few months before her death, she wrote\nto me: \u2018If I were a man, I should be your enthusiastic disciple; as a\nwoman, I can but offer you my cordial admiration\u2019. In the same letter\nshe explains the part which she proposed to take in diffusing the\nprinciples of the new philosophy: \u2018It is always well for a woman to\nfollow modestly behind the army of renovators, even at the risk of\nlosing a little of her own originality\u2019. She describes our intellectual\nanarchy in this charming simile: \u2018We are all standing as yet with one\nfoot in the air over the threshold of truth\u2019.\n\n [It is for women to\n introduce Positivism into\n the Southern nations]\n\nWith such a colleague, combining as she did qualities hitherto shared\namongst the noblest types of womanhood, it would have been easy to\ninduce her sex to co-operate in the regeneration of society. For she\ngave a perfect example of that normal reaction of Feeling upon Reason\nwhich has been here set forward as the highest aim of Woman\u2019s efforts.\nWhen she had finished the important work on which she was engaged, I\nhad marked out for her a definite yet spacious field of co-operation\nin the Positivist cause: a field which her intellect and character\nwere fully competent to occupy. I mention it here, to illustrate the\nmode in which women may help to spread Positivism through the West;\ngiving thus the first example of the social influence which they will\nafterwards exert permanently. What I say has special reference to Italy\nand to Spain. In other countries it only applies to individuals who,\nthough living in an atmosphere of free thought, have not themselves\nventured to think freely. Success in this latter case is so frequent,\nas to make me confident that the agencies of which I am about to speak\nmay be applied collectively with the same favourable result.\n\nThe intellectual freedom of the West began in England and Germany;\nand it had all the dangers of original efforts for which at that time\nno systematic basis could be found. With the legal establishment of\nProtestantism, the metaphysical movement stopped. Protestantism, by\nconsolidating it, seriously impeded subsequent progress, and is still,\nin the countries where it prevails, the chief obstacle to all efficient\nrenovation. Happily France, the normal centre of Western Europe, was\nspared this so-called Reformation. She made up for the delay, by\npassing at one stride, under the impulse given by Voltaire, to a state\nof entire freedom of thought; and thus resumed her natural place as\nleader of the common movement of social regeneration. But the French\nwhile escaping the inconsistencies and oscillations of Protestantism,\nhave been exposed to all the dangers resulting from unqualified\nacceptance of revolutionary metaphysics. Principles of systematic\nnegation have now held their ground with us too long. Useful as they\nonce were in preparing the way for social reconstruction, they are\nnow a hindrance to it. It may be hoped that when the movement of free\nthought extends, as it assuredly will, to the two Southern nations,\nwhere Catholicism has been more successful in resisting Protestantism\nand Deism, it will be attended with less injurious consequences.\nIf France was spared the Calvinistic stage, there seems no reason\nwhy Italy and even Spain should not be spared Voltairianism. As a\ncompensation for this apparent stagnation, they might pass at once from\nCatholicism to Positivism, without halting for any length of time at\nthe negative stage. These countries could not have originated the new\nphilosophy, owing to their insufficient preparation; but as soon as it\nhas taken root in France, they will probably accept it with extreme\nrapidity. Direct attacks upon Catholicism will not be necessary. The\nnew religion will simply put itself into competition with the old by\nperforming in a better way the same functions that Catholicism fulfils\nnow, or has fulfilled in past times.\n\nAll evidence, especially the evidence of the poets, goes to prove\nthat before Luther\u2019s time, there was less belief in the South of\nEurope, certainly less in Italy, than in the North. And Catholicism,\nwith all its resistance to the progress of thought, has never been\nable really to revive the belief in Christianity. We speak of Italy\nand Spain as less advanced; but the truth is that they only cling to\nCatholicism because it satisfies their moral and social wants better\nthan any system with which they are acquainted. Morally they have more\naffinity to Positivism than other nations; because their feelings of\nfraternity have not been weakened by the industrial development which\nhas done so much harm in Protestant countries. Intellectually, too,\nthey are less hostile to the primary principle of Positive Polity; the\nseparation of spiritual and temporal power. And therefore they will\nwelcome Positivism as soon as they see that in all essential features\nit equals and surpasses the mediaeval church. Now as this question is\nalmost entirely a moral one, their convictions in this respect will\ndepend far more upon Feeling than upon argument. Consequently, the work\nof converting them to Positivism is one for which women are peculiarly\nadapted. Positivism has been communicated to England by men. Holland,\ntoo, which has been the vanguard of Germany ever since the Middle Ages\nhas been initiated in the same way still more efficiently. But its\nintroduction in Italy and Spain will depend upon the women of those\ncountries; and the appeal to them must come, not from a Frenchman, but\nfrom a Frenchwoman; for heart must speak to heart. Would that these few\nwords might enable others to appreciate the inestimable worth of the\ncolleague whom I had intended to write such an appeal; and that they\nmight stimulate some one worthy to take her place!\n\nAlready, then, there is ground for encouragement. Already we have one\nstriking instance of a woman ready to co-operate in the philosophical\nmovement, which assigns to her sex a mission of the highest social\nconsequence as the prelude to the function for which in the normal\nstate they are destined. Such an instance, though it may seem now\nexceptional, does but anticipate what will one day be universal.\nHighly gifted natures pass through the same phases as others; only\nthey undergo them earlier, and so become guides for the rest. The\nsacred friend of whom I speak had nothing that specially disposed her\nto accept Positivism, except the beauty of her mind and character,\nprematurely ripened by sorrow. Had she been an untaught working woman,\nit would perhaps have been still easier for her to grasp the general\nspirit of the new philosophy and its social purpose.\n\nThe result of this chapter is to show the affinity of the systematic\nelement of the modifying power, as represented by philosophers, with\nwomen who form its sympathetic element; an affinity not less close\nthan that with the people, who constitute its synergic element. The\norganization of moral force is based on the alliance of philosophers\nwith the people; but the adhesion of women is necessary to its\ncompletion. With the union of all three, the regeneration of society\nbegins, and the revolution is brought to a close. But more than this:\ntheir union is at once an inauguration of the final order of society.\nEach of these three elements will be acting as it will be called\nupon to act in the normal state, and will be occupying its permanent\nposition relatively to the temporal power. The philosophic class whose\nwork it is to combine the action of the other two classes, will find\nvaluable assistance from women in every family, as well as powerful\nco-operation from the people in every city.\n\nThe result will be a union of all who are precluded from political\nadministration, instituted for the purpose of judging all practical\nmeasures by the fixed rules of universal morality. Exceptional cases\nwill arise when moral influence is insufficient: in these it will be\nnecessary for the people to interfere actively. But philosophers and\nwomen are dispensed from such interference. Direct action would be most\ninjurious to their powers of sympathy or of thought. They can only\npreserve these powers by keeping clear of all positions of political\nauthority.\n\nBut while the moral force resulting from the combined action of women\nand of the people, will be more efficient than that of the Middle Ages,\nthe systematic organs of that force will find their work one of great\ndifficulty. High powers of intellect are required and a heart worthy of\nsuch intellect. To secure the support of women, and the co-operation\nof the people, they must have the sympathy and purity of the first,\nthe energy and disinterestedness of the second. Such natures are rare;\nyet without them the new spiritual power cannot obtain that ascendancy\nover society to which Positivism aspires. And with all the agencies,\nphysical or moral, which can be brought to bear, we shall have to\nacknowledge that the exceeding imperfections of human nature form\nan eternal obstacle to the object for which Positivism strives, the\nvictory of social sympathy over self-love.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE RELATION OF POSITIVISM TO ART\n\n\n [Positivism when complete\n is as favourable to\n imagination, as, when\n incomplete, it was\n unfavourable to it]\n\nThe essential principles and the social purpose of the only philosophy\nby which the revolution can be brought to a close, are now before us.\nWe have seen too that energetic support from the People and cordial\nsympathy from Women are necessary to bring this philosophic movement to\na practical result. One further condition yet remains. The view here\ntaken of human life as regenerated by this combination of efforts,\nwould be incomplete if it did not include an additional element,\nwith which Positivism, as I have now to show, is no less competent\nto deal. We have spoken already of the place which Reason occupies\nin our nature; its function being to subordinate itself to Feeling\nfor the better guidance of the Active powers. But in the normal state\nof our nature it has also another function; that of regulating and\nstimulating Imagination, without yielding passive obedience to it.\nThe esthetic faculties are far too important to be disregarded in the\nnormal state of Humanity; therefore they must not be omitted from\nthe system which aims to introduce that state. There is a strong but\ngroundless prejudice that in this respect at least Positivism will be\nfound wanting. Yet it furnishes, as may readily be shown, the only\ntrue foundation of modern Art, which, since the Middle Ages, has been\ncultivated without fixed principles or lofty purpose.\n\nThe reproach that Positivism is incompatible with Art arises simply\nfrom the fact that almost every one is in the habit of confounding the\nphilosophy itself with the scientific studies on which it is based. The\ncharge only applies to the positive spirit in its preliminary phase of\ndisconnected specialities, a phase which scientific men of the present\nday are making such mischievous efforts to prolong. Nothing can be\nmore fatal to the fine arts than the narrow views, the overstraining\nof analysis, the abuse of the reasoning faculty, which characterize\nthe scientific investigation of the present day; to say nothing of\ntheir injurious effects upon moral progress, the first condition of\nesthetic development. But all these defects necessarily disappear when\nthe Positive spirit becomes more comprehensive and systematic; which is\nthe case as soon as it embraces the higher subjects in the encyclop\u00e6dic\nscale of sciences. When it reaches the study of Society, which is\nits true and ultimate sphere, it has to deal with the conceptions of\nPoetry, as well as with the operations of Feeling: since its object\nmust then be to give a faithful and complete representation of human\nnature under its individual, and still more under its social, aspects.\nHitherto Positive science has avoided these two subjects: but their\ncharm is such that, when the study of them has been once begun, it\ncannot fail to be prosecuted with ardour; and their proper place in the\nconstitution of Man and of Society will then be recognized. Reason has\nbeen divorced for a long time from Feeling and Imagination. But, with\nthe more complete and systematic culture here proposed, they will be\nre-united.\n\nTo those who have studied the foregoing chapters with attention,\nthe view that the new philosophy is unfavourable to Art, will be\nobviously unjust. Supposing even that there were no important functions\nspecially assigned to the fine arts in the Positive system, yet\nindirectly, the leading principles of the system, its social purpose,\nand the influences by which it is propagated, are all most conducive\nto the interests of Art. To demonstrate, as Positivism alone of all\nphilosophies has done, the subordination of the intellect to the heart,\nand the dependence of the unity of human nature upon Feeling, is to\nstimulate the esthetic faculties, because Feeling is their true source.\nTo propound a social doctrine by which the Revolution is brought to a\nclose, is to remove the principal obstacle to the growth of Art, and\nto open a wide field and a firm foundation for it, by establishing\nfixed principles and modes of life; in the absence of which Poetry can\nhave nothing noble to narrate or to inspire. To exhort the working\nclasses to seek happiness in calling their moral and mental powers\ninto constant exercise, and to give them an education, the principal\nbasis of which is esthetic, is to place Art under the protection of its\nnatural patrons.\n\nBut one consideration is of itself sufficient for our purpose. We have\nbut to look at the influence of Positivism upon Women, at its tendency\nto elevate the social dignity of their sex, while at the same time\nstrengthening all family ties. Now of all the elements of which society\nis constituted, Woman certainly is the most esthetic, alike from her\nnature and her position; and both her position and her nature are\nraised and strengthened by Positivism. We receive from women, not only\nour first ideas of Goodness, but our first sense of Beauty; for their\nown sensibility to it is equalled by their power of imparting it to\nothers. We see in them every kind of beauty combined; beauty of mind\nand character as well as of person. All their actions, even those which\nare unconscious, exhibit a spontaneous striving for ideal perfection.\nAnd their life at home, when free from the necessity of labouring for\na livelihood, favours this tendency. Living as they do for affection,\nthey cannot fail to feel aspirations for all that is highest, in the\nworld around them first, and then also in the world of imagination.\nA doctrine, then, which regards women as the originators of moral\ninfluence in society, and which places the groundwork of education\nunder their charge, cannot be suspected of being unfavourable to Art.\n\nLeaving these prejudices, we may now examine the mode in which the\nincorporation of Art into the modern social system will be promoted by\nPositivism. In the first place systematic principles of Art will be\nlaid down, and its proper function clearly defined. The result of this\nwill be to call out new and powerful means of expression, and also new\norgans. I may observe that the position which Art will occupy in the\npresent movement of social regeneration is already an inauguration of\nits final function; as we saw in the analogous cases of the position of\nwomen and of the working classes.\n\n [Esthetic talent is for the\n adornment of life, not for\n its government]\n\nBut before touching on this question it will be well to rectify a\nprevalent misconception on the subject, one of the many consequences\nof our mental and moral anarchy. I refer to the exaggeration of the\ninfluence of Art; an error which, if uncorrected, would vitiate all our\nviews with regard to it.\n\nAll poets of real genius, from Homer to Corneille, have always\nconsidered their work to be that of beautifying human life, and so far,\nof elevating it. Government of human life they had never supposed to\nfall within their province. Indeed no sane man would lay it down as a\nproposition that Imagination should control the other mental faculties.\nIt would imply that the normal condition of the intellect was insanity;\ninsanity being definable as that state of mind in which subjective\ninspirations are stronger than objective judgments. It is a static law\nof our nature, which has never been permanently suspended, that the\nfaculties of Representation and Expression should be subordinate to\nthose of Conception and Co-ordination. Even in cerebral disturbances\nthe law holds good. The relation with the external world is perverted,\nbut the original correlation of the internal mental functions remains\nunaffected.\n\nThe foolish vanity of the later poets of antiquity led some of them\ninto errors much resembling those which now prevail on this point.\nStill in Polytheistic society artists were at no time looked upon\nas the leading class, notwithstanding the esthetic character of\nGreek and Roman religion. If proofs were necessary, Homer\u2019s poems,\nespecially the Odyssey, would show how secondary the influence of\nthe fine arts was upon society, even when the priesthood had ceased\nto control them. Plato\u2019s Utopia, written when Polytheism was in its\ndecline, represented a state in which the interference of poets was\nsystematically prevented. Mediaeval Monotheism was still less disposed\nto overrate the importance of Art, though its true value was recognized\nmore generally than it had ever been before. But with the decline\nof Catholicism, germs of errors showed themselves, from which even\nthe extraordinary genius of Dante was not free. The revolutionary\ninfluences of the last five centuries have developed these errors into\nthe delirium of self-conceit exhibited by the poets and literary men\nof our time. Theology having arrived at its extreme limits before\nany true conception of the Positive state could arise, the negative\ncondition of the Western Republic became aggravated to an unheard-of\nextent. Rules and institutions, which had formerly controlled the\nmost headstrong ambition, fell rapidly into discredit. And as the\nprinciples of social order disappeared, artists and especially poets,\nthe leading class among them, stimulated by the applause which they\nreceived from their uninstructed audience, fell into the error of\nseeking political influence. Incompatible as all mere criticism must\nbe with true poetry, modern Art since the fourteenth century has\nparticipated more and more actively in the destruction of the old\nsystem. Until, however, Negativism had received its distinct shape\nand character from the revolutions of the sixteenth and seventeenth\ncenturies, the influence of Art for destructive purposes was secondary\nto that exercised by metaphysicians and legists. But in the eighteenth\ncentury, when negativism began to be propagated boldly in a systematic\nform, the case was changed, and literary ambition asserted itself more\nstrongly. The speculative thinkers who had hitherto formed the vanguard\nof the destructive movement, were replaced by mere litterateurs, men\nwhose talents were of a poetical rather than philosophical kind, but\nwho had, intellectually speaking, no real vocation. When the crisis\nof the Revolution came, this heterogeneous class took the lead in the\nmovement, and naturally stepped into all political offices; a state of\nthings which will continue until there is a more direct and general\nmovement of reorganization.\n\n [The political influence of\n literary men a deplorable\n sign and source of anarchy]\n\nThis is the historical explanation, and at the same time the\nrefutation, of the subversive schemes so prevalent in our time, of\nwhich the object is to establish a sort of aristocracy of literary\npedants. Such day-dreams of unbridled self-conceit find favour only\nwith the metaphysical minds who cannot sanction exceptional cases\nwithout making them into an absolute rule. If philosophers are to be\nexcluded from political authority, there is still greater reason for\nexcluding poets. The mental and moral versatility which makes them\nso apt in reflecting the thoughts and feelings of those around them,\nutterly unfits them for being our guides. Their natural defects are\nsuch as nothing but rigorous and systematic education can correct; they\nare, therefore, certain to be peculiarly prominent in times like these\nwhen deep convictions of any kind are so rare. Their real vocation is\nto assist the spiritual power as accessory members; and this involves\ntheir renouncing all ideas of government, even more strictly than\nphilosophers themselves. Philosophers, though not themselves engaging\nin politics, are called upon to lay down the principles of political\naction; but the poet has very little to do with either. His special\nfunction is to idealize and to stimulate; and to do this well, he must\nconcentrate his energies exclusively upon it. It is a large and noble\nfield, amply sufficient to absorb men who have a real vocation for it.\nAccordingly, in the great artist of former times we see comparatively\nfew traces of this extravagant ambition. It comes before us in a\ntime when, owing to the absence of regular habits of life and fixed\nconvictions, art of the highest order is impossible. The poets of our\ntime either have not realized or have mistaken their vocation. When\nSociety is again brought under the influence of a universal doctrine,\nreal poetry will again become possible; and such men as those we have\nbeen speaking of will turn their energies in a different direction.\nTill then they will continue to waste their efforts or to ruin their\ncharacter in worthless political agitation, a state of things in which\nmediocrity shines and real genius is left in the background.\n\nIn the normal state of human nature, Imagination is subordinate to\nReason as Reason is to Feeling. Any prolonged inversion of this natural\norder is both morally and intellectually dangerous. The reign of\nImagination would be still more disastrous than the reign of Reason;\nonly that it is even more incompatible with the practical conditions\nof human life. But chimerical as it is, the mere pursuit of it may do\nmuch individual harm by substituting artificial excitement, and in too\nmany cases affectation of feeling, in the place of deep and spontaneous\nemotion. Viewed politically, nothing can be worse than this undue\npreponderance of esthetic considerations caused by the uncontrolled\nambition of artists and litterateurs. The true object of Art, which is\nto charm and elevate human life, is gradually lost sight of. By being\nheld out as the aim and object of existence, it degrades the artist\nand the public equally, and is therefore certain to degenerate. It\nloses all its higher tendencies, and is reduced either to a sensuous\npleasure, or to a mere display of technical skill. Admiration for\nthe arts, which, when kept in its proper place, has done so much for\nmodern life, may become a deeply corrupting influence, if it becomes\nthe paramount consideration. It is notorious what an atrocious custom\nprevailed in Italy for several centuries, simply for the sake of\nimproving men\u2019s voices. Art, the true purpose of which is to strengthen\nour sympathies, leads when thus degraded to a most abject form of\nselfishness; in which enjoyment of sounds or forms is held out as\nthe highest happiness, and utter apathy prevails as to all questions\nof social interest. So dangerous is it intellectually, and still more\nso morally, for individuals, and above all, for societies to allow\nesthetic considerations to become unduly preponderant; even when they\nspring from a genuine impulse. But the invariable consequence to which\nthis violation of the first principles of social order leads, is the\nsuccess of mediocrities who acquire technical skill by long practice.\n\nThus it is that we have gradually fallen under the discreditable\ninfluence of men who were evidently not competent for any but\nsubordinate positions, and whose preponderance has proved as injurious\nto Art as it has been to Philosophy and Morality. A fatal facility of\ngiving expression to what is neither believed nor felt, gives temporary\nreputation to men who are as incapable of originality in Art as they\nare of grasping any new principle in science. It is the most remarkable\nof all the political anomalies caused by our revolutionary position;\nand the moral results are most deplorable, unless when, as rarely\nhappens, the possessor of these undeserved honours has a nature too\nnoble to be injured by them. Poets are more exposed to these dangers\nthan other artists, because their sphere is more general and gives\nwider scope for ambition. But in the special arts we find the same evil\nin a still more degrading form; that of avarice, a vice by which so\nmuch of our highest talent is now tainted. Another signal proof of the\nchildish vanity and uncontrolled ambition of the class is, that those\nwho are merely interpreters of other men\u2019s productions claim the same\ntitle as those who have produced original works.\n\nSuch are the results of the extravagant pretensions which artists and\nliterary men have gradually developed during the last five centuries.\nI have dwelt upon them because they constitute at present serious\nimpediments to all sound views of the nature and purposes of Art. My\nstrictures will not be thought too severe by really esthetic natures,\nwho know from personal experience how fatal the present system is to\nall talent of a high order. Whatever the outcry of those personally\ninterested, it is certain that in the true interest of Art the\nsuppression of mediocrity is at least as important as the encouragement\nof talent. True taste always implies distaste. The very fact that the\nobject is to foster in us the sense of perfection, implies that all\ntrue connoisseurs will feel a thorough dislike for feeble work. Happily\nthere is this privilege in all masterpieces, that the admiration\naroused by them endures in its full strength for all time; so that\nthe plea which is often put forward of keeping up the public taste\nby novelties which in reality injure it, falls to the ground. To\nmention my own experience, I may say that for thirteen years I have\nbeen induced alike from principle and from inclination, to restrict my\nreading almost entirely to the great Occidental poets, without feeling\nthe smallest curiosity for the works of the day which are brought out\nin such mischievous abundance.\n\n [Theory of Art]\n\nGuarding ourselves, then, against errors of this kind, we may now\nproceed to consider the esthetic character of Positivism. In the first\nplace, it furnishes us with a satisfactory theory of Art; a subject\nwhich has never been systematically explained; all previous attempts to\ndo so, whatever their value, having viewed the subject incompletely.\nThe theory here offered is based on the subjective principle of the new\nphilosophy, on its objective dogma, and on its social purpose; as set\nforward in the two first chapters of this work.\n\n [Art is the idealized\n representation of Fact]\n\nArt may be defined as an ideal representation of Fact; and its object\nis to cultivate our sense of perfection. Its sphere therefore is\nco-extensive with that of Science. Both deal in their own way with\nthe world of Fact; the one explains it, the other beautifies it. The\ncontemplations of the artist and of the man of science follow the same\nencyclop\u00e6dic law; they begin with the simple objects of the external\nworld; they gradually rise to the complicated facts of human nature. I\npointed out in the second chapter that the scientific scale, the scale,\nthat is, of the True, coincided with that of the Good: we now see that\nit coincides with that of the Beautiful. Thus between these three great\ncreations of Humanity, Philosophy, Polity, and Poetry, there is the\nmost perfect harmony. The first elements of Beauty, that is to say,\nOrder and Magnitude, are visible in the inorganic world, especially in\nthe heavens; and they are there perceived with greater distinctness\nthan where the phenomena are more complex and less uniform. The higher\ndegrees of Beauty will hardly be recognized by those who are insensible\nto this its simplest phase. But as in Philosophy we only study the\ninorganic world as a preliminary to the study of Man; so, but to a\nstill greater extent, is it with Poetry. In Polity the tendency is\nsimilar but less apparent. Here we begin with material progress; we\nproceed to physical and subsequently to intellectual progress; but it\nis long before we arrive at the ultimate goal, moral progress. Poetry\npasses more rapidly over the three preliminary stages, and rises with\nless difficulty to the contemplation of moral beauty. Feeling, then,\nis essentially the sphere of Poetry. And it supplies not the end\nonly, but the means. Of all the phenomena which relate to man, human\naffections are the most modifiable, and therefore the most susceptible\nof idealization. Being more imperfect than any other, by virtue of\ntheir higher complexity, they allow greater scope for improvement.\nNow the act of expression, however imperfect, reacts powerfully upon\nthese functions, which from their nature are always seeking some\nexternal vent. Every one recognizes the influence of language upon\nthoughts: and surely it cannot be less upon feelings, since in them\nthe need of expression is greater. Consequently all esthetic study,\neven if purely imitative, may become a useful moral exercise, by\ncalling sympathies and antipathies into healthy play. The effect is far\ngreater when the representation, passing the limits of strict accuracy,\nis suitably idealized. This indeed is the characteristic mission of\nArt. Its function is to construct types of the noblest kind, by the\ncontemplation of which our feelings and thoughts may be elevated. That\nthe portraiture should be exaggerated follows from the definition of\nArt; it should surpass realities so as to stimulate us to amend them.\nGreat as the influence is of these poetic emotions on individuals, they\nare far more efficacious when brought to bear upon public life: not\nonly from the greater importance of the subject matter, but because\neach individual impression is rendered more intense by combination.\n\n [Poetry is intermediate\n between Philosophy and\n Polity]\n\nThus Positivism explains and confirms the view ordinarily taken of\nPoetry, by placing it midway between Philosophy and Polity; issuing\nfrom the first, and preparing the way for the second.\n\nEven Feeling itself, the highest principle of our existence, accepts\nthe objective dogma of Philosophy, that Humanity is subject to the\norder of the external world. And Imagination on still stronger grounds\nmust accept the same law. The ideal must always be subordinate to the\nreal; otherwise feebleness as well as extravagance is the consequence.\nThe statesman who endeavours to improve the existing order, must first\nstudy it as it exists. And the poet, although his improvements are\nbut imagined, and are not supposed capable of realization, must do\nlikewise. True in his fictions he will transcend the limits of the\npossible, while the statesman will keep within those limits; but both\nhave the same point of departure; both begin by studying the actual\nfacts with which they deal. In our artificial improvements we should\nnever aim at anything more than wise modification of the natural\norder; we should never attempt to subvert it. And though Imagination\nhas a wider range for its pictures, they are yet subject to the same\nfundamental law, imposed by Philosophy upon Polity and Poetry alike.\nEven in the most poetic ages this law has always been recognized, only\nthe external world was interpreted then in a way very differently from\nnow. We see the same thing every day in the mental growth of the child.\nAs his notions of fact change, his fictions are modified in conformity\nwith these changes.\n\nBut while Poetry depends upon Philosophy for the principles on which\nits types are constructed, it influences Polity by the direction which\nit gives to those types. In every operation that man undertakes, he\nmust imagine before he executes, as he must observe before he imagines.\nHe can never produce a result which he has not conceived first in\nhis own mind. In the simplest application of mechanics or geometry\nhe finds it necessary to form a mental type, which is always more\nperfect than the reality which it precedes and prepares. Now none\nbut those who confound poetry with verse-making can fail to see that\nthis conception of a type is the same thing as esthetic imagination,\nunder its simplest and most general aspect. Its application to social\nphenomena, which constitute the chief sphere both of Art and of\nScience, is very imperfectly understood as yet, and can hardly be said\nto have begun, owing to the want of any true theory of society. The\nreal object of so applying it is, that it should regulate the formation\nof social Utopias; subordinating them to the laws of social development\nas revealed by history. Utopias are to the Art of social life what\ngeometrical and mechanical types are to their respective arts. In these\ntheir necessity is universally recognized; and surely the necessity\ncannot be less in problems of such far greater intricacy. Accordingly\nwe see that, notwithstanding the empirical condition in which political\nart has hitherto existed, every great change has been ushered in, one\nor two centuries beforehand, by an Utopia bearing some analogy to it.\nIt was the product of the esthetic genius of Humanity working under an\nimperfect sense of its conditions and requirements. Positivism, far\nfrom laying an interdict on Utopias, tends rather to facilitate their\nemployment and their influence, as a normal element in society. Only,\nas in the case of all other products of imagination, they must always\nremain subordinated to the actual laws of social existence. And thus by\ngiving a systematic sanction to this the Poetry, as it may be called,\nof Politics, most of the dangers which now surround it will disappear.\nIts present extravagances arise simply from the absence of some\nphilosophical principle to control it, and therefore there is no reason\nfor regarding them with great severity.\n\nThe whole of this theory may be summed up in the double meaning of\nthe word so admirably chosen to designate our esthetic functions. The\nword _Art_ is a remarkable instance of the popular instinct from which\nlanguage proceeds, and which is far more enlightened than educated\npersons are apt to suppose. It indicates, however vaguely, a sense of\nthe true position of Poetry, midway between Philosophy and Polity,\nbut with a closer relation to the latter. True, in the case of the\ntechnical arts the improvements proposed are practically realized,\nwhile those of the fine arts remain imaginary. Poetry, however, does\nproduce one result of an indirect but most essential kind; it does\nactually modify our moral nature. If we include oratory, which is\nonly Poetry in a simpler phase, though often worthless enough, we\nfind its influence exerted in a most difficult and critical task,\nthat of arousing or calming our passions; and this not arbitrarily,\nbut in accordance with the fixed laws of their action. Here it has\nalways been recognized as a moral agency of great power. On every\nground, then, Poetry seems more closely related to practical than to\nspeculative life. For its practical results are of the most important\nand comprehensive nature. Whatever the utility of other arts, material,\nphysical, or intellectual, they are only subsidiary or preparatory\nto that which in Poetry is the direct aim, moral improvement. In the\nMiddle Ages it was common in all Western languages to speak of it as\na Science, the proper meaning of the word Science being then very\nimperfectly understood. But as soon as both artistic and scientific\ngenius had become more fully developed, their distinctive features were\nmore clearly recognized, and finally the name of Art was appropriated\nto the whole class of poetic functions. The fact is, at all events, an\nargument in favour of the Positive theory of idealization, as standing\nmidway between theoretical inquiry and practical result.\n\n [Art calls each element of\n our nature into harmonious\n action]\n\nEvidently, then, it is in Art that the unity of human natures finds its\nmost complete and most natural representation. For Art is in direct\nrelation with the three orders of phenomena by which human nature\nis characterized; Feelings, Thoughts, and Actions. It originates in\nFeeling; the proof of this is even more obvious than in the case of\nPhilosophy and Polity. It has its basis in Thought, and its end is\nAction. Hence its power of exerting an influence for good alike on\nevery phase of our existence, whether personal or social. Hence too its\npeculiar attribute of giving equal pleasure to all ranks and ages. Art\ninvites the thinker to leave his abstractions for the study of real\nlife; it elevates the practical man into a region of thought where\nself-love has no place. By its intermediate position it promotes the\nmutual reaction of Affection and Reason. It stimulates feeling in those\nwho are too much engrossed with intellectual questions: it strengthens\nthe contemplative faculty in natures where sympathy predominates. It\nhas been said of Art that its province is to hold a mirror to nature.\nThe saying is usually applied to social life where its truth is most\napparent. But it is no less true of every aspect of our existence; for\nunder every aspect it may be a source of Art, and may be represented\nand modified by it. Turning to Biology for the cause of this\nsociological relation, we find it in the relation of the muscular and\nnervous systems. Our motions, involuntary at first, and then voluntary,\nindicate internal impressions, moral impressions more especially; and\nas they proceed from them, so they react upon them. Here we find the\nfirst germ of a true theory of Art. Throughout the animal kingdom\nlanguage is simply gesticulation of a more or less expressive kind. And\nwith man esthetic development begins in the same spontaneous way.\n\n [Three stages in the\n esthetic process: Imitation,\n Idealization, Expression]\n\nWith this primary principle we may now complete our statical theory\nof Art, by indicating in it three distinct degrees or phases. The\nfine arts have been divided into imitative and inventive; but this\ndistinction has no real foundation. Art always imitates, and always\nidealizes. True, as the real is in every case the source of the ideal,\nArt begins at first with simple Imitation. In the childhood, whether of\nmen or of the race, as also with the lower animals, servile imitation,\nand that of the most insignificant actions, is the only symptom of\nesthetic capacity. No representation, however, has at present any claim\nto the title of Art (although from motives of puerile vanity the name\nis often given to it), except so far as it is made more beautiful, that\nis to say, more perfect. The representation thus becomes in reality\nmore faithful, because the principal features are brought prominently\nforward, instead of being obscured by a mass of unmeaning detail.\nThis it is which constitutes Idealization; and from the time of the\ngreat masterpieces of antiquity, it has become more and more the\ncharacteristic feature of esthetic productions. But in recognizing the\nsuperiority of Idealization as the second stage of Art, we must not\nforget the necessity of its first stage, Imitation. Without it neither\nthe origin nor the nature of Art could be correctly understood.\n\nIn addition to the creative process, which is the chief characteristic\nof Art, there is a third function which, though not absolutely\nnecessary in its imitative stage, becomes in its ideal stage. I mean\nthe function of Expression strictly so called, without which the\nproduct of imagination could not be communicated to others. Language,\nwhether it be the Language of sound or form, is the last stage of the\nesthetic operation, and it does not always bear a due proportion to the\ninventive faculty. When it is too defective, the sublimest creations\nmay be ranked lower than they deserve, owing to the failure of the poet\nto communicate his thought completely. Great powers of style may, on\nthe other hand, confer unmerited reputation, which however does not\nendure. An instance of this is the preference that was given for so\nlong a time to Racine over Corneille.\n\nSo long as Art is confined to Imitation, no special language is\nrequired; imitation is itself the substitute for language. But as soon\nas the representation has become idealized by heightening some features\nand suppressing or altering others, it corresponds to something which\nexists only in the mind of the composer; and its communication to the\nworld requires additional labour devoted exclusively to Expression.\nIn this final process so necessary to the complete success of his\nwork, the poet moulds his signs upon his inward type; just as he began\nat first by adapting them to external facts. So far there is some\ntruth in Gr\u00e9try\u2019s principle that song is derived from speech by the\nintermediate stage of declamation. The same principle has been applied\nto all the special arts; it might also be applied to Poetry, oratory\nbeing the link between verse and prose. These views, however, are\nsomewhat modified by the historical spirit of Positive Philosophy. We\nmust invert Gr\u00e9try\u2019s relation of cause and effect; at least when we are\nconsidering those primitive times, when Art and Language first arose\ntogether.\n\nThe origin of all our faculties of expression is invariably esthetic;\nfor we do not express till after we have felt strongly. Feeling had,\nin primitive times at all events, far more to do with these faculties\nthan Thought, being a far stronger stimulant to external demonstration.\nEven in the most highly wrought languages, where, in consequence of\nsocial requirements, reason has to a great extent encroached upon\nemotion, we see evidence of this truth. There is a musical element\nin the most ordinary conversation. Listening carefully to a lecture\non the most abstruse mathematical problem, we shall hear intonations\nwhich proceed obviously from the heart rather than the head, and which\nare indications of character even in the most unimpassioned speaker.\nBiology at once explains this law, by teaching that the stimulus to\nthe muscles used in expression, whether vocal or gesticulatory, comes\nprincipally from the affective region of the brain; the specu-region\nbeing too inert to produce muscular contraction for which there is\nno absolute necessity. Accordingly, Sociology regards every language\nas containing in its primitive elements all that is spontaneous and\nuniversal in the esthetic development of Humanity; enough, that is,\nto satisfy the general need of communicating emotion. In this common\nfield the special arts commence, and they ultimately widen it. But the\noperation is the same in its nature, whether carried on by popular\ninstinct or by individuals. The final result is always more dependent\non feeling than on reason, even in times like these, when the intellect\nhas risen in revolt against the heart. Song, therefore, comes before\nSpeech; Painting before Writing; because the first things we express\nare those which move our feelings most. Subsequently the necessities\nof social life oblige us to employ more frequently, and ultimately\nto develop, those elements in painting or in song, which relate to\nour practical wants and to our speculative faculties so far as they\nare required for supplying them; these forming the topics of ordinary\ncommunication. Thus the emotion from which the sign had originally\nproceeded becomes gradually effaced; the practical object is alone\nthought of, and expression becomes more rapid and less emphatic. The\nprocess goes on until at last the sign is supposed to have originated\nin arbitrary convention; though, if this were the case, its universal\nand spontaneous adoption would be inexplicable. Such, then, is the\nsociological theory of Language, on which I shall afterwards dwell\nmore fully. I connect it with the whole class of esthetic functions,\nfrom which in the lower animals it is not distinguished. For no animal\nidealizes its song or gesture so far as to rise to anything that can\nproperly be called Art.\n\n [Classification of the\n arts on the principle of\n decreasing generality, and\n increasing intensity]\n\nTo complete our examination of the philosophy of Art, statically\nviewed, we have now only to speak of the order in which the various\narts should be classified. Placed as Art is, midway between Theory\nand Practice, it is classified on the same principle, the principle,\nthat is of decreasing generality, which I have long ago shown to be\napplicable to all Positive classifications of whatever kind. We have\nalready obtained from it a scale of the Beautiful, answering in most\npoints to that which was first laid down for the True, and which\nwe applied afterwards to the Good. By following it in the present\ninstance, we shall be enabled to range the arts in the order of their\nconception and succession, as was done in my Treatise on Positive\nPhilosophy for the various branches of Science and Industry.\n\nThe arts, then, should be classified by the decreasing generality and\nthe increasing intensity, which involves also increasing technicality,\nof their modes of expression. In its highest term the esthetic scale\nconnects itself with the scientific scale; and in its lowest with the\nindustrial scale. This is in conformity with the position assigned\nto Art intermediate between Philosophy and Practical life. Art never\nbecomes disconnected from human interests; but as it becomes less\ngeneral and more technical, its relation with our higher attributes\nbecomes less intimate, and it is more dependent on inorganic Nature, so\nthat at last the kind of beauty depicted by it is merely material.\n\n [Poetry]\n\nOn these principles of classification we must give the first place\nto Poetry properly so called, as being the most general and least\ntechnical of the arts, and as being the basis on which all the rest\ndepend. The impressions which it produces are less intense than those\nof the rest, but its sphere is evidently wider, since it embraces\nevery side of our existence, whether individual, domestic, or social.\nPoetry, like the special arts, has a closer relation with actions\nand impulses than with thoughts. Yet the most abstract conceptions\nare not excluded from its sphere; for not merely can it improve the\nlanguage in which they are expressed, but it may add to their intrinsic\nbeauty. It is, on the whole, the most popular of all the arts, both\non account of its wider scope, and also because, its instruments of\nexpression being taken directly from ordinary language, it is more\ngenerally intelligible than any other. True, in the highest kind of\npoetry versification is necessary; but this cannot be called a special\nart. The language of Poetry, although distinct in form, is in reality\nnothing but the language of common men more perfectly expressed. The\nonly technical element in it, prosody, is easily acquired by a few\ndays\u2019 practice. A proof of the identity of the language of Poetry with\nthat of common life, is the fact that no poet has ever been able to\nwrite with effect in a foreign or a dead language. And not only is this\nnoblest of Arts more comprehensive, more spontaneous, more popular than\nthe rest, but it surpasses them in that which is the characteristic\nfeature of all art, Ideality. Poetry is the art which idealizes the\nmost, and imitates the least. For these reasons it has always held\nthe first place among the arts; a view which will be strengthened in\nproportion as we attach greater importance to idealization and less\nto mere expression. In expression it is inferior to the other arts,\nwhich represent such subjects as fall within their compass with greater\nintensity. But it is from Poetry that these subjects are usually\nborrowed.\n\n [Music]\n\nThe first term of the series being thus determined, the other arts\nmay at once be ranked according to the degree of their affinity\nwith Poetry. Let us begin by distinguishing the different senses to\nwhich they appeal; and we shall find that our series proceeds on the\nprinciple which biologists, since Gall\u2019s time, have adopted for the\nclassification of the special senses, the principle of decreasing\nsociability. There are only two senses which can be called esthetic;\nnamely, Sight and Hearing: the others having no power of raising us\nto Idealization. The sense of smell can, it is true, enable us to\nassociate ideas; but in man it exists too feebly for artistic effects.\nHearing and Sight correspond to the two modes of natural language,\nvoice and gesture. From the first arises the art of Music; the second,\nwhich however is less esthetic, includes the three arts of form. These\nare more technical than Music; their field is not so wide, and moreover\nthey stand at a greater distance from poetry; whereas Music remained\nfor a long time identified with it. Another distinction is that the\nsense to which music appeals performs its function involuntarily; and\nthis is one reason why the emotions which it calls forth are more\nspontaneous and more deep, though less definite, than in the case\nwhere it depends on the will whether we receive the impression or not.\nAgain, the difference between them answers to the distinction of Time\nand Space. The art of sound represents succession; the arts of form,\nco-existence. On all these grounds music should certainly be ranked\nbefore the other special arts, as the second term of the esthetic\nseries. Its technical difficulties are exaggerated by pedants, whose\ninterest it is to do so; in reality, special training is less needed\nfor its appreciation, and even for its composition, than in the case of\neither painting or sculpture. Hence it is in every respect more popular\nand more social.\n\n [Painting\n  Sculpture\n  Architecture]\n\nOf the three arts which appeal to the voluntary sense of sight, and\nwhich present simultaneous impressions, Painting, on the same principle\nof arrangement, holds the first rank, and Architecture the last;\nSculpture being placed between them. Painting alone employs all the\nmethods of visual expression, combining the effects of colour with\nthose of form. Whether in public or private life, its sphere is wider\nthan that of the other two. More technical skill is required in it\nthan in music, and it is harder to obtain; but the difficulty is less\nthan in Sculpture or in Architecture. These latter idealize less,\nand imitate more. Of the two, Architecture is the less esthetic. It\nis far more dependent on technical processes; and indeed most of its\nproductions are rather works of industry than works of art. It seldom\nrises above material beauty: moral beauty it can only represent by\nartifices, of which the meaning is often ambiguous. But the impressions\nconveyed by it are so powerful and so permanent, that it will always\nretain its place among the fine arts, especially in the case of great\npublic buildings, which stand out as the most imposing record of\neach successive phase of social development. Never has the power of\nArchitecture been displayed to greater effect than in our magnificent\ncathedrals, in which the spirit of the Middle Ages has been idealized\nand preserved for posterity. They exhibit in a most striking manner the\nproperty which Architecture possesses of bringing all the arts together\ninto a common centre.\n\n [The conditions favourable\n to Art have never yet been\n combined]\n\nThese brief remarks will illustrate the method adopted by the new\nphilosophy in investigating a systematic theory of Art under all its\nstatical aspects. We have now to speak of its action upon social life,\nwhether in the final state of Humanity, or in the transitional movement\nthrough which that state is to be reached.\n\nThe Positive theory of history shows us at once, in spite of strong\nprejudices to the contrary, that up to the present time the progress\nachieved by Art has been, like that of Science and Industry, only\npreparatory; the conditions essential to its full development never\nhaving yet been combined.\n\n [Neither in Polytheism]\n\nToo much has been made of the esthetic tendencies of the nations of\nantiquity, owing to the free scope that was given to Imagination in\nconstructing their doctrines. In fact Polytheism, now that the belief\nin its principles exists no longer, has been regarded as simply a work\nof art. But the long duration of its principles would be sufficient\nproof that they were not created by the poets, but that they emanated\nfrom the philosophic genius of Humanity working spontaneously, as\nexplained in my theory of human development, in the only way that was\nthen possible. All that Art did for Polytheism was to perform its\nproper function of clothing it in a more poetic form. It is quite\ntrue that the peculiar character of Polytheistic philosophy gave\ngreater scope for the development of Art than has been afforded by any\nsubsequent system. It is to this portion of the theological period that\nwe must attribute the first steps of esthetic development, whether in\nsociety or in the individual. Yet Art was never really incorporated\ninto the ancient order. Its free growth was impossible so long as it\nremained under the control of Theocracy, which made use of it as an\ninstrument, but which, from the stationary character of its dogmas,\nshackled its operations. Moreover, the social life of antiquity was\nhighly unfavourable to Art. The sphere of personal feelings and\ndomestic affections was hardly open to it. Public life in ancient times\nhad certainly more vigorous and more permanent features, and here\nthere was a wider field. Yet even in such a case as that of Homer, we\nfeel that he would hardly have spent his extraordinary powers upon\ndescriptions of military life, had there been nobler subjects for his\ngenius. The only grand aspect, viewed socially, that war could offer,\nthe system of incorporation instituted by Rome after a succession\nof conquests, could not then be foreseen. When that period arrived,\nancient history was drawing to a close, and the only poetical tribute\nto this nobler policy was contained in a few beautiful lines of\nVirgil\u2019s _\u00c6neid_, ending with the remarkable expression,\n\n    Pacisque imponere morem,\n    (Impose the law of peace.)\n\n [Nor under the Mediaeval\n system]\n\nMediaeval society, notwithstanding irrational prejudices to the\ncontrary, would have been far more favourable to the fine arts, could\nit have continued longer. I do not speak, indeed, of its dogmas;\nwhich were so incompatible with Art, as to lead to the strange\ninconsistency of giving a factitious sanction to Paganism in the midst\nof Christianity. By holding personal and chimerical objects before us\nas the end of life, Monotheism discouraged all poetry, except so far as\nit related to our individual existence. This, however, was idealized by\nthe mystics, whose beautiful compositions penetrated into our inmost\nemotions, and wanted nothing but greater perfection of form. All that\nCatholicism effected for Art in other respects was to secure a better\nposition for it, as soon as the priesthood became strong enough to\ncounteract the intellectual and moral defects of Christian doctrine.\nBut the social life of the Middle Ages was far more esthetic than that\nof antiquity. War was still the prevailing occupation; but by assuming\na defensive character, it had become far more moral, and therefore\nmore poetic. Woman had acquired a due measure of freedom; and the free\ndevelopment of home affections were thus no longer restricted. There\nwas a consciousness of personal dignity hitherto unknown, and yet\nquite compatible with social devotion, which elevated individual life\nin all its aspects. All these qualities were summed up in the noble\ninstitution of Chivalry; which gave a strong stimulus to Art throughout\nWestern Europe, and diffused it more largely than in any former period.\nThis movement was in reality, though the fact is not recognized as it\nshould be, the source of modern Art. The reason for its short duration\nis to be found in the essentially transient and provisional character\nof mediaeval society under all its aspects. By the time that its\nlanguage and habits had become sufficiently stable for the esthetic\nspirit to produce works of permanent value, Catholic Feudalism was\nalready undermined by the growing force of the negative movement. The\nbeliefs and modes of life offered for idealization were seen to be\ndeclining: and neither the poet nor his readers could feel those deep\nconvictions which the highest purposes of Art require.\n\n [Much less in modern times]\n\nDuring the decline of Chivalry, Art received indirectly an additional\nimpulse from the movement of social decomposition which has been going\non rapidly for the last five centuries. In this movement all mental and\nsocial influences gradually participated. Negativism, it is true, is\nnot the proper province of Art; but the dogmas of Christianity were so\noppressive to it, that its efforts to shake off the yoke were of great\nservice to the cause of general emancipation. Dante\u2019s incomparable\nwork is a striking illustration of this anomalous combination of two\ncontradictory influences. It was a situation unfavourable for art,\nbecause every aspect of life was rapidly changing and losing its\ncharacter before there was time to idealize it. Consequently the poet\nhad to create his own field artificially from ancient history, which\nsupplied him with those fixed and definite modes of life which he\ncould not find around him. Thus it was that for several centuries the\nClassical system became the sole source of esthetic culture; the result\nbeing that Art lost much of the originality and popularity which had\npreviously belonged to it. That great masterpieces should have been\nproduced at all under such unfavourable circumstances is the best proof\nof the spontaneous character of our esthetic faculties. The value of\nthe Classical system has been for some time entirely exhausted; and now\nthat the negative movement has reached its extreme limits there only\nremained one service (a service of great temporary importance) for Art\nto render, the idealization of Doubt itself. Such a phase of course\nadmitted of but short duration. The best examples of it are the works\nof Byron and Goethe, the principle value of which has been, that they\nhave initiated Protestant countries into the unrestricted freedom of\nthought which emanated originally from French philosophy.\n\nThus history shows that the esthetic development of Humanity has\nbeen the result of spontaneous tendencies rather than of systematic\nguidance. The mental conditions most favourable to it have never\nbeen fulfilled simultaneously with its social conditions. At the\npresent time both are alike wanting. Yet there is no evidence that\nour esthetic faculties are on the decline. Not only has the growth\nof art proceeded in spite of every obstacle, but it has become more\nthoroughly incorporated into the life of ordinary men. In ancient times\nit was cultivated only by a small class. So little was it recognized\nas a component part of social organization, that it did not even enter\ninto men\u2019s imaginary visions of a future existence. But in the Middle\nAges the simplest minds were encouraged to cultivate the sense of\nbeauty as one of the purest delights of human life; and it was held\nout as the principal occupation of the celestial state. From that time\nall classes of European society have taken an increasing interest in\nthese elevating pleasures, beginning with poetry, and thence passing\nto the special arts, especially music, the most social of all. The\ninfluence of artists, even when they had no real claim to the title,\nhas been on the increase; until at last the anarchy of the present time\nhas introduced them to political power, for which they are utterly\nunqualified.\n\n [Under Positivism the\n conditions will all be\n favourable. There will be\n fixed principles, and a\n nobler moral culture]\n\nAll this would seem to show that the greatest epoch of Art has yet to\ncome. In this respect, as in every other, the Past has but supplied the\nnecessary materials for future reconstruction. What we have seen as yet\nis but a spontaneous and immature prelude; but in the manhood of our\nmoral and mental powers, the culture of Art will proceed on principles\nas systematic as the culture of Science and of Industry, both of which\nat present are similarly devoid of organization. The regeneration of\nsociety will be incomplete until Art has been fully incorporated into\nthe modern order. And to this result all our antecedents have been\ntending. To renew the esthetic movement so admirably begun in the\nMiddle Ages, but interrupted by classical influences, will form a part\nof the great work which Positivism has undertaken, the completion and\nre-establishment of the Mediaeval structure upon a firmer intellectual\nbasis. And when Art is once restored to its proper place, its future\nprogress will be unchecked, because, as I shall now proceed to show,\nall the influences of the final order, spontaneous or systematic, will\nbe in every respect favourable to it. If this can be made clear, the\npoetic capabilities of Positive Philosophy will require no further\nproof.\n\nAs being the only rallying point now possible for fixed convictions,\nwithout which life can have no definite or permanent character,\nPositivism is on this ground alone indispensable to all further\ndevelopment of modern Art. If the poet and his readers are alike\ndevoid of such convictions, no idealization of life, whether personal,\ndomestic, or social, is in any true sense possible. No emotions are\nfit subjects for Art unless they are felt deeply, and unless they come\nspontaneously to all. When society has no marked intellectual or moral\nfeature, Art, which is its mirror, can have none either. And although\nthe esthetic faculty is so innate in us that it never can remain\ninactive, yet its culture becomes in this case vague and objectless.\nThe fact therefore that Positivism terminates the Revolution by\ninitiating the movement of organic growth is of itself enough to prove\nits beneficial influence upon Art.\n\nArt, indeed, would profit by any method of reorganization, whatever its\nnature. But the principle on which Positivism proposes to reconstruct\nis peculiarly favourable to its growth. The opinions and the modes of\nlife to which that principle conducts are precisely those which are\nmost essential to esthetic development.\n\nA more esthetic system cannot be imagined than one which teaches\nthat Feeling is the basis on which the unity of human nature rests;\nand which assigns as the grand object of man\u2019s existence, progress\nin every direction, but especially moral progress. It may seem at\nfirst as if the tendency of the new philosophy was merely to make us\nmore systematic. And systematization is assuredly indispensable; but\nthe sole object of it is to increase our sympathy and our synergic\nactivity by supplying that fixity of principle which alone can lead\nto energetic practice. By teaching that the highest happiness is to\naid in the happiness of others, Positivism invites the poet to his\nnoblest function, the culture of generous sympathies, a subject far\nmore poetic than the passions of hatred and oppression which hitherto\nhave been his ordinary theme. A system which regards such culture as\nthe highest object cannot fail to incorporate Poetry as one of its\nessential elements, and to give to it a far higher position than it has\never held before. Science, although it be the source from which the\nPositive system emanates, will be restricted to its proper function\nof supplying the objective basis for human prevision; thus giving to\nArt and Industry, which must always be the principal objects of our\nattention, the foundation they require. Positivism, substituting in\nevery subject the relative point of view for the absolute, regarding,\nthat is, every subject in its relation to Humanity, would not prosecute\nthe study of the True beyond what is required for the development of\nthe Good and the Beautiful. Beyond this point, scientific culture is\na useless expenditure of time, and a diversion from the great end for\nwhich Man and Society exist. Subordinate as the ideal must ever be to\nthe real, Art will yet exercise a most salutary influence upon Science,\nas soon as we cease to study Science in an absolute spirit. In the\nvery simplest phenomena, after reaching the degree of exactness which\nour wants require, there is always a certain margin of liberty for the\nimagination; and advantage may very well be taken of this to make our\nconceptions more beautiful and so far more useful. Still more available\nis this influence of the Beautiful on the True in the highest subjects,\nthose which directly concern Humanity. Minute accuracy being here more\ndifficult and at the same time less important, more room is left for\nesthetic considerations. In representing the great historical types,\nfor instance, Art has its place as well as Science. A society which\ndevotes all its powers to making every aspect of life as perfect as\npossible, will naturally give preference to that kind of intellectual\nculture which is of all others the best calculated to heighten our\nsense of perfection.\n\n [Predisposing influence of\n Education]\n\nThe tendency of Positivism to favour these the most energetic of our\nintellectual faculties and the most closely related to our moral\nnature, is apparent throughout its educational system. The reader\nwill have seen in the third chapter that in Positive education more\nimportance is attached to Art than to Science, as the true theory\nof human development requires. Science intervenes only to put into\nsystematic shape what Art, operating under the direct influence of\naffection, has spontaneously begun. As in the history of mankind\nesthetic development preceded scientific development, so it will\nbe with the individual, whose education on the Positive method is\nbut a reproduction of the education of the race. The only rational\nprinciple of our absurd classical system is its supposed tendency to\nencourage poetical training. The futility, however, of this profession\nis but too evident: the usual result of the system being to implant\nerroneous notions of all the fine arts, if not utter distaste for\nthem. A striking illustration of its worthlessness is the idolatry\nwith which for a whole century our French pedants regarded Boileau;\na most skilful versifier, but of all our poets perhaps the least\ngifted with true poetic feeling. Positivist education will effect what\nclassical education has attempted so imperfectly. It will familiarize\nthe humblest working man or woman from childhood with all the beauties\nof the best poets; not those of his own nation merely, but of all the\nWest. To secure the genuineness and efficiency of esthetic development,\nattention must first be given to the poets who depict our own modern\nsociety. Afterwards, as I have said, the young Positivist will be\nadvised to complete his poetical course, by studying the poets who\nhave idealized antiquity. But his education will not be limited to\npoetry, it will embrace the special arts of sound and form, by which\nthe principal effects of poetry are reproduced with greater intensity.\nThus the contemplation and meditation suggested by Art, besides their\nown intrinsic charm, will prepare the way for the exercise of similar\nfaculties in Science. For with the individual, as with the species,\nthe combination of images will assist the combination of signs: signs\nin their origin being images which have lost their vividness. As the\nsphere of Art includes every subject of human interest, we shall\nbecome familiarized, during the esthetic period of education, with\nthe principal conceptions that are afterwards to be brought before us\nsystematically in the scientific period. Especially will this be true\nof historical studies. By the time that the pupil enters upon them, he\nwill be already familiar with poetic descriptions of the various social\nphases, and of the men who played a leading part in them.\n\n [Relation of Art to Religion]\n\nAnd if Art is of such importance in the education of the young, it is\nno less important in the afterwork of education; the work of recalling\nmen or classes of men to those high feelings and principles which,\nin the daily business of life, are so apt to be forgotten. In the\nsolemnities, private or public, appointed for this purpose, Positivism\nwill rely far more on impressions such as poetry can inspire, than\non scientific explanations. Indeed the preponderance of Art over\nScience will be still greater than in education properly so called.\nThe scientific basis of human conduct having been already laid down,\nit will not be necessary to do more than refer to it. The philosophic\npriesthood will in this case be less occupied with new conceptions,\nthan with the enforcement of truth already known, which demands\nesthetic rather than scientific talent.\n\nA vague presentiment of the proper function of Art in regulating public\nfestivals was shown empirically by the Revolutionists. But all their\nattempts in this direction proved notorious failures; a signal proof\nthat politicians should not usurp the office of spiritual guides.\nThe intention of a festival is to give public expression to deep and\ngenuine feeling; spontaneousness therefore is its first condition.\nHence it is a matter with which political rulers are incompetent to\ndeal; and even the spiritual power should only act as the systematic\norgan of impulses which already exist. Since the decline of Catholicism\nwe have had no festivals worthy of the name; nor can we have them\nuntil Positivism has become generally accepted. All that governments\ncould do at present is to exhibit unmeaning and undignified shows\nbefore discordant crowds, who are themselves the only spectacles worth\nbeholding. Indeed the usurpation of this function by government is\nin many cases as tyrannical as it is irrational; arbitrary formulas\nare often imposed, which answer to no pre-existing feeling whatever.\nEvidently the direction of festivals is a function which more than\nany other belongs exclusively to the spiritual power, since it is the\nspiritual power which regulates the tendencies of which these festivals\nare the manifestation. Here its work is essentially esthetic. A\nfestival even in private, and still more in public life, is or should\nbe a work of art; its purpose being to express certain feelings by\nvoice or gesture, and to idealize them. It is the most esthetic of all\nfunctions, since it involves usually a complete combination of the\nfour special arts, under the presidence of the primary art, Poetry. On\nthis ground governments have in most cases been willing to waive their\nofficial authority in this matter, and to be largely guided by artistic\ncounsel, accepting even the advice of painters and sculptors in the\ndefault of poets of real merit.\n\nThe esthetic tendencies of Positivism, with regard to institutions of\nthis kind, are sufficiently evident in the worship of Woman, spoken\nof in the preceding chapter, and in the worship of Humanity, of which\nI shall speak more particularly afterwards. From these, indeed, most\nPositivist festivals, private or public, will originate. But this\nsubject has been already broached, and will be discussed in the next\nchapter with as much detail as the limits of this introductory work\nallow.\n\nWhile the social value of Art is thus enhanced by the importance of the\nwork assigned to it, new and extensive fields for its operations are\nopened out by Positivism. Chief amongst these is History, regarded as a\ncontinuous whole; a domain at present almost untouched.\n\n [Idealization of historical\n types]\n\nModern poets, finding little to inspire them in their own times, and\ndriven back into ancient life by the classical system, have already\nidealized some of the past phases of Humanity. Our great Corneille, for\ninstance, is principally remembered for the series of dramas in which\nhe has so admirably depicted various periods of Roman history. In our\nown times where the historical spirit has become stronger, novelists,\nlike Scott and Manzoni, have made similar though less perfect attempts\nto idealize later periods. Such examples, however, are but spontaneous\nand imperfect indications of the new field which Positivism now offers\nto the artist; a field which extends over the whole region of the Past\nand even of the Future. Until this vast domain had been conceived of\nas a whole by the philosopher, it would have been impossible to bring\nit within the compass of poetry. Now theological and metaphysical\nphilosophers were prevented by the absolute spirit of their doctrines\nfrom understanding history in all its phases, and were totally\nincapable of idealizing them as they deserved. Positivism, on the\ncontrary, is always relative; and its principal feature is a theory of\nhistory which enables us to appreciate and become familiar with every\nmode in which human society has formed itself. No sincere Monotheist\ncan understand and represent with fairness the life of Polytheists or\nFetichists. But the Positivist poet, accustomed to look upon all past\nhistorical stages in their proper filiation, will be able so thoroughly\nto identify himself with all, as to awaken our sympathies for them, and\nrevive the traces which each individual may recognize of corresponding\nphases in his own history. Thus we shall be able thoroughly to enter\ninto the esthetic beauty of the Pagan creeds of Greece and Rome,\nwithout any of the scruples which Christians could not but feel when\nengaged on the same subject. In the Art of the Future all phases of the\nPast will be recalled to life with the same distinctness with which\nsome of them have been already idealized by Homer and Corneille. And\nthe value of this new source of inspiration is the greater that, at\nthe same time that it is being opened out to the artist, the public\nis being prepared for its enjoyment. An almost exhaustless series of\nbeautiful creations in epic or dramatic art may be produced, which, by\nrendering it more easy to comprehend and to glorify the Past in all\nits phases, will form an essential element, on the one hand, of our\neducational system, and on the other, of the worship of Humanity.\n\n [Art requires the highest\n education; but little\n special instruction]\n\nLastly, not only will the field for Art become wider, but its organs\nwill be men of a higher stamp. The present system, in which the arts\nare cultivated by special classes, must be abolished, as being wholly\nalien to that synthetic spirit which always characterizes the highest\npoetic genius.\n\nReal talent for Art cannot fail to be called out by the educational\nsystem of Positivism, which, though intended for the working classes,\nis equally applicable to all others. We can only idealize and portray\nwhat has become familiar to us; consequently poetry has always rested\nupon some system of belief, capable of giving a fixed direction to our\nthoughts and feelings. The greatest poets, from Homer to Corneille,\nhave always participated largely in the best education of which their\ntimes admitted. The artist must have clear conceptions before he can\nexhibit true pictures. Even in these anarchic times, when the system\nof specialities is being carried to such an irrational extent, the\nso-called poets who imagine that they can themselves save the trouble\nof philosophical training, have in reality to borrow a basis of belief\nfrom some worn-out metaphysical or theological creed. Their special\neducation, if it can be called so, consists merely in cultivating the\ntalent for expression, and is equally injurious to their intellect\nand their heart. Incompatible with deep conviction of any kind, while\ngiving mechanical skill in the technical department of Art, it impairs\nthe far more important faculty of idealization. Hence it is that we are\nat present so deplorably over-stocked with verse-makers and literary\nmen, who are wholly devoid of real poetic feeling, and are fit for\nnothing but to disturb society by their reckless ambition. As for\nthe four special arts, the training for them at present given, being\nstill more technical, is even more hurtful in every respect to the\nstudent whose education does not extend beyond it. On every ground,\nthen, artists of whatever kind should begin their career with the same\neducation as the rest of society. The necessity for such an education\nin the case of women has been already recognized; and it is certainly\nnot less desirable for artists and poets.\n\nIndeed, so esthetic is the spirit of Positive education, that no\nspecial training for Art will be needed, except that which is given\nspontaneously by practice. There is no other profession which requires\nso little direct instruction; the tendency of it in Art being to\ndestroy originality, and to stifle the fire of genius with technical\nerudition. Even for the special arts no professional education is\nneeded. These, like industrial arts, should be acquired by careful\npractice under the guidance of good masters. The notorious failure of\npublic institutions established for the purpose of forming musicians\nand painters, makes it unnecessary to dwell further upon this point.\nNot to speak of their injurious effects upon character, they are a\npositive impediment to true genius. Poets and artists, then, require\nno education beyond that which is given to the public, whose thoughts\nand emotions it is their office to represent. Its want of speciality\nmakes it all the more fit to develop and bring forward real talent. It\nwill strengthen the love of all the fine arts simultaneously; for the\nconnexion between them is so intimate that those who make it a boast\nthat their talent is for one of them exclusively will be strongly\nsuspected of having no real vocation for any. All the greatest masters,\nmodern no less than ancient, have shown this universality of taste. Its\nabsence in the present day is but a fresh proof that esthetic genius\ndoes not and cannot exist in times like these, when Art has no social\npurpose and rests on no philosophic principles. If even amateurs are\nexpected to enjoy Art in all its forms, is it likely that composers of\nreal genius will restrict their admiration to their own special mode of\nidealization and expression?\n\n [Artists as a class will\n disappear. Their function\n will be appropriated by the\n philosophic priesthood]\n\nPositivism, then, while infusing a profoundly esthetic spirit into\ngeneral education, would suppress all special schools of Art on the\nground that they impede its true growth, and simply promote the\nsuccess of mediocrities. When this principle is carried out to its\nfull length, we shall no longer have any special class of artists. The\nculture of Art, especially of poetry, will be a spontaneous addition to\nthe functions of the three classes which constitute the moral power of\nsociety.\n\nUnder theocracy, the system by which the evolution of human society\nwas inaugurated, the speculative class absorbed all functions except\nthose relating to the common business of life. No distinction was made\nbetween esthetic and scientific talent. Their separation took place\nafterwards: and though it was indispensable to the full development of\nboth, yet it forms no part of the permanent order of society, in which\nthe only well-marked division is that between Theory and Practice.\nUltimately all theoretic faculties will be again combined even more\nclosely than in primitive times. So long as they are dispersed, their\nfull influence on practical life cannot be realized. Only it was\nnecessary that they should remain dispersed until each constituent\nelement had attained a sufficient degree of development. For this\npreliminary growth the long period of time that has elapsed since\nthe decline of theocracy was necessary. Art detached itself from the\ntheoretical system before Science, because its progress was more\nrapid, and from its nature it was more independent. The priesthood had\nlost its hold of Art, as far back as the time of Homer: but it still\ncontinued to be the depositary of science, until it was superseded at\nfirst by philosophers strictly so called, afterwards by mathematicians\nand astronomers. So it was that Art first, and subsequently Science,\nyielded to the specializing system which, though normal for Industry,\nis in their case abnormal. It stimulated the growth of our speculative\nfaculties at the time of their escape from the yoke of theocracy: but\nnow that the need for it no longer exists, it is the principal obstacle\nto the final order, towards which all their partial developments have\nbeen tending. To recombine these special elements on new principles is\nat present the primary condition of social regeneration.\n\nLooking at the two essential functions of the spiritual power,\neducation and counsel, it is not difficult to see that what they\nrequire is a combination of poetic feeling with scientific insight. We\nlook for a measure of both these qualities in the public; therefore\nmen who are devoid of either of them cannot be fit to be its spiritual\nguides. That they take the name of philosophers in preference to that\nof poets, is because their ordinary duties are more connected with\nScience than with Art but they ought to be equally interested in\nboth. Science requires systematic teaching, whereas Art is cultivated\nspontaneously, with the exception of the technical branches of the\nspecial arts. It must be remembered that the highest esthetic functions\nare not such as can be performed continuously. It is only works of\nrare excellence which are in the highest sense useful: these, once\nproduced, supply an unfailing source of idealization and expression for\nour emotions, whether in public or in private. It is enough, if the\ninterpreter of these works and his audience have been so educated as to\nappreciate what is perfect, and reject mediocrity. Organs of unusual\npower will arise occasionally, as in former times, from all sections of\nsociety, whenever the need of representing new emotions may be felt.\nBut they will come more frequently from the philosophic class in whose\ncharacter, when it is fully developed, Sympathy will be as prominent a\nfeature as System.\n\n [Identity of esthetic and\n scientific genius]\n\nThere is, in truth, no organic distinction between scientific and\npoetic genius. The difference lies merely in their combinations of\nthought, which are concrete and ideal in the one case, abstract and\nreal in the other. Both employ analysis at starting; both alike aim\nultimately at synthesis. The erroneous belief in their incompatibility\nproceeds merely from the absolute spirit of metaphysical philosophy,\nwhich so often leads us to mistake a transitory phase for the permanent\norder. If it is the fact, as appears, that they have never been\nactually combined in the same person, it is merely because the two\nfunctions cannot be called into action at the same moment. A state of\nsociety that calls for great philosophical efforts cannot be favourable\nto poetry, because it involves a new elaboration of first principles;\nand it is essential to Art that these should have been already\nfixed. This is the reason why in history we find periods of esthetic\ngrowth succeeding periods of great philosophical change, but never\nco-existing. If we look at instances of great minds who were never able\nto find their proper sphere, we see at once that had they risen at some\nother time, they might have cultivated either poetry or philosophy,\nas the case might be, with equal success. Diderot would no doubt\nhave been a great poet in a time more favourable to art; and Goethe,\nunder different political influences, might have been an eminent\nphilosopher. All scientific discoverers in whom the inductive faculty\nhas been more active than the deductive, have given manifest proof of\npoetic capacity. Whether the powers of invention take an abstract or\na concrete direction, whether they are employed in discovering truth\nor in idealizing it, the cerebral function is always essentially the\nsame. The difference is merely in the objects aimed at; and as these\nalternate according to the circumstances of the time, they cannot\nboth be pursued simultaneously. The remarkably synthetic character of\nBuffon\u2019s genius may be looked on historically as an instance of fusion\nof the scientific and esthetic spirit. Bossuet is even a more striking\ninstance of a mind equally capable of the deepest philosophy and of the\nsublimest poetry, had the circumstances of his life given him a more\ndefinite impulse in either direction.\n\nIt is then not unreasonable to expect, notwithstanding the opinion\nusually maintained, that the philosophical class will furnish poets of\nthe highest rank when the time calls for them. To pass from scientific\nthought to esthetic thought will not be difficult for minds of the\nhighest order; for in such minds there is always a natural inclination\ntowards the work which is most urgently required by their age. To\nmeet the technical conditions of the arts of sound and form, it will\nbe necessary to provide a few special masters, who, in consideration\nof the importance of their services to general education, will be\nlooked upon as accessory members of the new spiritual power. But even\nhere the tendency to specialities will be materially restricted. This\nexceptional position will only be given to men of sufficient esthetic\npower to appreciate all the fine arts; and they should be capable of\npractising at least the three arts of form simultaneously, as was done\nby Italian painters in the sixteenth century.\n\nAs an ordinary rule, it is only by their appreciation and power of\nexplaining ideal Art in all its forms that our philosophers will\nexhibit their esthetic faculty. They will not be actively engaged in\nesthetic functions, except in the arrangement of public festivals.\nBut when the circumstances of the time are such as to call for great\nepic or dramatic works, which implies the absence of any philosophical\nquestion of the first importance, the most powerful minds among them\nwill become poets in the common sense of the word. As the work of\nCo-ordination and that of Idealization will for the future alternate\nwith greater rapidity, we might conceive them, were man\u2019s life longer,\nperformed by the same organ. But the shortness of life, and the\nnecessity of youthful vigour for all great undertakings, excludes this\nhypothesis. I only mention it to illustrate the radical identity of two\nforms of mental activity which are often supposed incompatible.\n\n [Women\u2019s poetry]\n\nAn additional proof of the esthetic capacity of the moderating power\nin works of less difficulty, but admitting of greater frequency,\nwill be furnished by its feminine element. In the special arts, or\nat least in the arts of form, but little can be expected of them,\nbecause these demand more technical knowledge than they can well\nacquire, and, moreover, the slow process of training would spoil the\nspontaneousness which is so admirable in them. But for all poetic\ncomposition which does not require intense or prolonged effort, women\nof genius are better qualified than men. This they should consider as\ntheir proper department intellectually, since their nature is not well\nadapted for the discovery of scientific truth. When women have become\nmore systematically associated with the general movement of society\nunder the influence of the new system of education, they will do much\nto elevate that class of poetry which relates to personal feelings\nand to domestic life. Women are already better judges of such poetry\nthan men; and there is no reason why they should not excel them in\ncomposing it. For the power of appreciating and that of producing are\nin reality identical; the difference is in degree only, and it depends\ngreatly upon culture. The only kind of composition which seems to me\nto be beyond their power is epic or dramatic poetry in which public\nlife is depicted. But in all its other branches, poetry would seem\ntheir natural field of study; and one which, regarded always as an\nexceptional occupation, is quite in keeping with the social duties\nassigned to them. The affections of our home life cannot be better\nportrayed than by those in whom they are found in their purest form,\nand who, without training, combine talent and expression with the\ntendency to idealize. Under a more perfect organization, then, of the\nesthetic world than prevails at present, the larger portion of poetical\nand perhaps also of musical productions, will pass into the hands of\nthe more loving sex. The advantage of this will be that the poetry of\nprivate life will then rise to that high standard of moral purity of\nwhich it so peculiarly admits, but which our coarser sex can never\nattain without struggles which injure its spontaneity. The simple grace\nof Lafontaine and the delicate sweetness of Petrarch will then be found\nunited with deeper and purer sympathies, so as to raise lyrical poetry\nto a degree of perfection that has never yet been attained.\n\n [People\u2019s poetry]\n\nThe popular element of the spiritual power has not so well marked an\naptitude for art, since the active nature of their occupations hardly\nadmits of the same degree of intellectual life. But there is a minor\nclass of poems, where energy of character and freedom from worldly\ncares are the chief sources of inspiration, for which working men\nare better adapted than women, and far more so than philosophers.\nWhen Positivist education has extended sufficiently to the People of\nthe West, poets and musicians will spontaneously arise, as in many\ncases they have already risen, to give expression to its own special\naspirations. But independently of what may be due to individual\nefforts, the People as a whole has an indirect but most important\ninfluence upon the Progress of Art, from the fact of being the\nprincipal source of language.\n\nSuch, then, is the position which Art will finally assume in the\nPositive system. There will be no class at present, exclusively devoted\nto it, with the exception of a few special masters. But there will be\na general education, enabling every class to appreciate all the modes\nof idealization, and encouraging their culture among the three elements\nwhich constitute the moral force of society and which are excluded\nfrom political government. Among these there will be a division of\nesthetic labour. Poetry descriptive of public life will emanate from\nthe philosophic class. The poetry of personal or domestic life will\nbe written by women or working men, according as affection or energy\nmay be the source of inspiration. Thus the form of mental activity\nmost appropriate to Humanity will be more specially developed among\nthose classes in which the various features of our nature are most\nprominently exhibited. The only classes who cannot participate in\nthis pleasant task are those whose life is occupied by considerations\nof power or wealth, and whose enjoyment of Art, though heightened by\nthe education which they in common with others will receive, must\nremain essentially passive. Our idealizing powers will henceforth be\ndirectly concentrated on a work of the highest social importance, the\npurification of our moral nature. The speciality by which so much of\nthe natural charm of Art was lost will cease, and the moral dangers of\na life exclusively devoted to the faculty of expression, will exist no\nlonger.\n\n [Value of Art in the present\n crisis]\n\nI have now shown the position which Art will occupy in the social\nsystem as finally constituted. I have yet to speak of its influence in\nthe actual movement of regeneration which Positivism is inaugurating.\nWe have already seen that each of the three classes who participate\nin this movement, assumes functions similar to those for which it is\nultimately destined; performing them in a more strenuous, though less\nmethodic way. This is obviously true of the philosophic class who\nhead the movement; nor is it less true of the proletariate, from whom\nit derives its vigour, or of women, whose support gives it a moral\nsanction. It is, therefore, at first sight probable that the same\nwill hold good of the esthetic conditions which are necessary to the\ncompleteness of these three functions of the social organism. On closer\nexamination we shall find that this is the case.\n\n [Construction of normal\n types on the basis furnished\n by philosophy]\n\nThe principal function of Art is to construct types on the basis\nfurnished by Science. Now this is precisely what is required for\ninaugurating the new social system. However perfectly its first\nprinciples may be elaborated by thinkers, they will still be not\nsufficiently definite for the practical result. Systematic study of the\nPast can only reveal the Future in general outline. Even in the simpler\nsciences perfect distinctness is impossible without overstepping the\nlimits of actual proof. Still more, therefore, in Sociology will\nthe conclusions of Science fall always far short of that degree of\nprecision and clearness, without which no principle can be thoroughly\npopularized. But at the point where Philosophy must always leave a\nvoid, Poetry steps in and stimulates to practical action. In the early\nperiods of Polytheism, Poetry repaired the defects of the system\nviewed dogmatically. Its value will be even greater in idealizing a\nsystem founded, not upon imagination, but upon observation of fact.\nIn the next chapter I shall dwell at greater length on the service\nwhich Poetry will render in representing the central conception of\nPositivism. It will be easy to apply the same principle to other cases.\n\n [Pictures of the Future of\n Man]\n\nIn his efforts to accomplish this object, the Positivist poet will\nnaturally be led to form prophetic pictures of the regeneration of Man,\nviewed in every aspect that admits of being ideally represented. And\nthis is the second service which Art will render to the cause of social\nrenovation; or rather it is an extension of the first. Systematic\nformation of Utopias will in fact become habitual; on the distinct\nunderstanding that, as in every other branch of art, the ideal shall\nbe kept in subordination to the real. The unlimited license which is\napparently given to Utopias by the unsettled character of the time\nis in reality a bar to their practical influence, since even the\nwildest dreamers shrink from extravagance that oversteps the ordinary\nconditions of mental sanity. But when it is once understood that the\nsphere of Imagination is simply that of explaining and giving life\nto the conclusions of Reason, the severest thinkers will welcome its\ninfluence; because so far from obscuring truth, it will give greater\ndistinctness to it than could be given by Science unassisted. Utopias\nhave, then, their legitimate purpose, and Positivism will strongly\nencourage their formation. They form a class of poetry which, under\nsound sociological principles, will prove of material service in\nleading the people of the West towards the normal state. Each of the\nfive modes of Art may participate in this salutary influence; each in\nits own way may give a foretaste of the beauty and greatness of the\nnew life that is now offered to the individual, to the family, and to\nsociety.\n\n [Contrasts with the past]\n\nFrom this second mode in which Art assists the great work of\nreconstruction we pass naturally to a third, which at the present\ntime is of equal importance. To remove the spell under which the\nWestern nations are still blinded to the Future by the decayed\nruins of the Past, all that is necessary is to bring these ruins\ninto comparison with the prophetic pictures of which we have been\nspeaking. Since the decline of Catholicism in the fourteenth century,\nArt has exhibited a critical spirit alien to its true nature, which\nis essentially synthetic. Henceforth it is to be constructive rather\nthan critical; yet this is not incompatible with the secondary object\nof contending against opinions, and still more against modes of life,\nwhich ought to have died out with the Catholic system, or with the\nrevolutionary period which followed it. But resistance to some of the\nmost deeply-rooted errors of the Past will not interfere with the\nlarger purpose of Positivist Art. No direct criticism will be needed.\nWhether against theological or against metaphysical dogmas, argument\nis henceforth needless, even in a philosophical treatise, much more so\nin poetry. All that is needed is simple contrast, which in most cases\nwould be implied rather than expressed, of the procedure of Positivism\nand Catholicism in reference to similar social and moral problems.\nThe scientific basis of such a contrast, is already furnished; it is\nfor Art to do the rest, since the appeal should be to Feeling rather\nthan to Reason. At the close of the last chapter I mentioned the\nprincipal case in which this comparison would have been of service, the\nintroduction, namely, of Positivism to the two Southern nations. It was\nthe task that I had marked out for my saintly fellow-worker, for it is\none in which the esthetic powers of women would be peculiarly available.\n\nIn this, the third of its temporary functions, Positivist Art\napproximates to its normal character. We have spoken of its\nidealization of the Future, but here it will idealize the Past also.\nPositivism cannot be accepted until it has rendered the fullest\nand most scrupulous justice to Catholicism. Our poets, so far from\ndetracting from the moral and political worth of the mediaeval system,\nwill begin by doing all the honour to it that is consistent with\nphilosophical truth, as a prelude to the still higher beauty of the\nsystem which supersedes it. It will be the inauguration of their\npermanent office of restoring the Past to life. For it is equally in\nthe interest of systematic thought and of social sympathy that the\nrelation of the Past to the Future should be deeply impressed upon all.\n\nBut these three steps towards the incorporation of Art into the\nfinal order, though not far distant, cannot be taken immediately.\nThey presuppose a degree of intellectual preparation which is not\nyet reached either by the public or by its esthetic teachers. The\npresent generation under which, in France, the great revolution is\nnow peacefully entering upon its second phase, may diffuse Positivism\nlargely, not merely amongst qualified thinkers, but among the people\nof Paris, who are entrusted with the destinies of Western Europe, and\namong women of nobler nature. The next generation, growing up in the\nmidst of this movement, may, before the expiration of a century from\nthe date of the Convention, complete spontaneously the moral and mental\ninauguration of the new system, by exhibiting the new esthetic features\nwhich Humanity in her regenerate condition will assume.\n\nLet us now sum up the conclusions of this chapter. We have found\nPositive Philosophy peculiarly favourable to the continuous development\nof all the fine arts. A doctrine which encourages Humanity to strive\nfor perfection of every kind, cannot but foster and assimilate that\nform of mental activity by which our sense of perfection is so highly\nstimulated. It controls the Ideal, indeed, by systematic study of the\nReal; but only in order to furnish it with an objective basis, and so\nto secure its coherence and its moral value. Placed on this footing,\nour esthetic faculties are better adapted than the scientific, both to\nthe nature and range of our understanding, and also to that which is\nthe object of all intellectual effort, the organization of human unity.\nFor they are more immediately connected with Feeling, on which the\nunity of our nature must rest. Next to direct culture of the heart, it\nis in ideal Art that we shall find the best assistance in our efforts\nto become more loving and more noble.\n\nLogically, Art should have a salutary influence upon our intellectual\nfaculties, because it familiarizes us from childhood with the features\nby which all constructive efforts of man should be characterized.\nScience has for a long time preferred the analytic method, whereas Art,\neven in these times of anarchy, always aims at Synthesis, which is the\nfinal goal of all intellectual activity. Even when Art, contrary to its\nnature, undertakes to destroy, it cannot do its work, whatever it be,\nwithout constructing. Thus, by implanting a taste and faculty for ideal\nconstruction, Art enables us to build with greater effect than ever\nupon the more stubborn soil of reality.\n\nOn all these grounds Art, in the Positive system, is made the primary\nbasis of general education. In a subsequent stage education assumes\na more scientific character, with the object of supplying systematic\nnotions of the external world. But in after life Art resumes its\noriginal position. There the ordinary functions of the spiritual power\nwill be esthetic rather than scientific. The three elements of which\nthe modifying power is composed will become spontaneously the organs\nof idealization, a function which will henceforth never be dissociated\nfrom the power of philosophic synthesis.\n\nSuch a combination implies that the new philosophers shall have a true\nfeeling for all the fine arts. In ordinary times passive appreciation\nof them will suffice; but there will occasionally be periods where\nphilosophic effort ceases to be necessary, and which call rather for\nthe vigour of the poet; and at these times the more powerful minds\namong them should be capable of rising to the loftiest creative\nefforts. Difficult as the condition may be, it is essential to the\nfull degree of moral influence of which their office admits and which\ntheir work requires. The priest of Humanity will not have attained his\nfull measure of superiority over the priest of God, until, with the\nintellect of the Philosopher, he combines the enthusiasm of the Poet,\nas well as the tenderness of Woman, and the People\u2019s energy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nCONCLUSION. THE RELIGION OF HUMANITY\n\n\n [Recapitulation of the\n results obtained]\n\nLove, then, is our principle; Order our basis; and Progress our\nend. Such, as the preceding chapters have shown, is the essential\ncharacter of the system of life which Positivism offers for the\ndefinite acceptance of society; a system which regulates the whole\ncourse of our private and public existence, by bringing Feeling,\nReason, and Activity into permanent harmony. In this final synthesis,\nall essential conditions are far more perfectly fulfilled than in any\nother. Each special element of our nature is more fully developed, and\nat the same time the general working of the whole is more coherent.\nGreater distinctness is given to the truth that the affective element\npredominates in our nature. Life in all its actions and thoughts is\nbrought under the control and inspiring charm of Social Sympathy.\n\nBy the supremacy of the Heart, the Intellect, so far from being\ncrushed, is elevated; for all its powers are consecrated to the\nservice of the social instincts, with the purpose of strengthening\ntheir influence and directing their employment. By accepting its\nsubordination to Feeling, Reason adds to its own authority. To it we\nlook for the revelation of the laws of nature, of the established Order\nwhich dictates the inevitable conditions of human life. The objective\nbasis thus discovered for human effort reacts most beneficially on our\nmoral nature. Forced as we are to accept it, it controls the fickleness\nto which our affections are liable, and acts as a direct stimulus to\nsocial sympathy. Concentrated on so high an office, the intellect will\nbe preserved from useless digression; and will yet find a boundless\nfield for its operations in the study of all the natural laws by which\nhuman destinies are affected, and especially those which relate to the\nconstitution of man or of society. The fact that every subject is to be\nregarded from the sociological point of view, so far from discouraging\neven the most abstract order of speculations, adds to their logical\ncoherence as well as to their moral value, by introducing the central\nprinciple round which alone they can be co-ordinated into a whole.\n\nAnd whilst Reason is admitted to its due share of influence on human\nlife, Imagination is also strengthened and called into constant\nexercise. Henceforth it will assume its proper function, the\nidealization of truth. For the objective basis of our conceptions\nscientific investigation is necessary. But this basis once obtained,\nthe constitution of our mind is far better adapted to esthetic than to\nscientific study, provided always that imagination never disregard the\ntruths of science, and degenerate into extravagance. Subject to this\ncondition, Positivism gives every encouragement to esthetic studies,\nbeing, as they are, so closely related to its guiding principle and\nto its practical aim, to Love namely, and to Progress. Art will enter\nlargely into the social life of the Future, and will be regarded as the\nmost pleasurable and most salutary exercise of our intellectual powers,\nbecause it leads them in the most direct manner to the culture and\nimprovement of our moral nature.\n\nOriginating in the first instance from practical life, Positivism\nwill return thither with increased force, now that its long period\nof scientific preparation is accomplished, and that it has occupied\nthe field of moral truth, which henceforth will be its principal\ndomain. Its principle of sympathy, so far from relaxing our efforts,\nwill stimulate all our faculties to universal activity by urging them\nonwards towards perfection of every kind. Scientific study of the\nnatural Order is inculcated solely with the view of directing all the\nforces of Man and of Society to its improvement by artificial effort.\nHitherto this aim has hardly been recognized, even with regard to the\nmaterial world, and but a very small proportion of our energies has\nbeen spent upon it. Yet the aim is high, provided always that the view\ntaken of human progress extend beyond its lower and more material\nstages. Our theoretical powers once concentrated on the moral problems\nwhich form their principal field, our practical energies will not fail\nto take the same direction, devoting themselves to that portion of the\nnatural Order which is most imperfect, and at the time most modifiable.\nWith these larger and more systematic views of human life, its best\nefforts will be given to the improvement of the mind, and still more to\nthe improvement of the character and to the increase of affection and\ncourage. Public and private life are now brought into close relation\nby the identity of their principal aim, which, being kept constantly\nin sight, ennobles every action in both. Practical questions must\never continue to preponderate, as before, over questions of theory;\nbut this condition, so far from being adverse to speculative power,\nconcentrates it upon the most difficult of all problems, the discovery\nof moral and social laws, our knowledge of which will never be fully\nadequate to our practical requirements. Mental and practical activity\nof this kind can never result in hardness of feeling. On the contrary,\nit impresses us more strongly with the conviction that Sympathy is not\nmerely our highest happiness, but the most effectual of all our means\nof improvement; and that without it, all other means can be of little\navail.\n\nThus it is that in the Positive system, the Heart, the Intellect, and\nthe Character mutually strengthen and develop one another, because\neach is systematically directed to the mode of action for which it is\nby nature adapted. Public and private life are brought into a far more\nharmonious relation than in any former time, because the purpose to\nwhich both are consecrated is identical; the difference being merely\nin the range of their activities. The aim in both is to secure, to the\nutmost possible extent, the victory of Social feeling over Self-love;\nand to this aim all our powers, whether of affection, thought, or\naction, are in both unceasingly directed.\n\nThis, then, is the shape in which the great human problem comes\ndefinitely before us. Its solution demands all the appliances of\nSocial Art. The primary principle on which the solution rests, is\nthe separation of the two elementary powers of society; the moral\npower of counsel, and the political powers of command. The necessary\npreponderance of the latter, which rests upon material force,\ncorresponds to the fact that in our imperfect nature, where the coarser\nwants are the most pressing and the most continuously felt, the selfish\ninstincts are naturally stronger than the unselfish. In the absence\nof all compulsory authority, our action even as individuals would be\nfeeble and purposeless, and social life still more certainly would lose\nits character and its energy. Moral force, therefore, by which is meant\nthe force of conviction and persuasion, is to be regarded simply as a\nmodifying influence, not as a means of authoritative direction.\n\nMoral force originates in Feeling and in Reason. It represents the\nsocial side of our nature, and to this its direct influence is limited.\nIndeed by the very fact that it is the expression of our highest\nattributes, it is precluded from that practical ascendancy which is\npossessed by faculties of a lower but more energetic kind. Inferior to\nmaterial force in power, though superior to it in dignity, it contrasts\nand opposes its own classification of men according to the standard\nof moral and intellectual worth, to the classification by wealth and\nworldly position which actually prevails. True, the higher standard\nwill never be adopted practically, but the effort to uphold it will\nreact beneficially on the natural order of society. It will inspire\nthose larger views, and reanimate that sense of duty, which are so apt\nto become obliterated in the ordinary current of life.\n\nThe means of effecting this important result, the need of which is\nso generally felt, will not be wanting, when the moderating power\nenters upon its characteristic function of preparing us for practical\nlife by a rational system of education, throughout which, even in its\nintellectual department, moral considerations will predominate. This\npower will therefore concentrate itself upon theoretical and moral\nquestions; and it can only maintain its position as the recognized\norgan of social sympathy, by invariable abstinence from political\naction. It will be its first duty to contend against the ambitious\ninstincts of its own members. True, such instincts, in spite of the\nimpurity of their source, may be of use in those natures who are\nreally destined for the indispensable business of government. But for\na spiritual power formal renunciation of wealth and rank is at the\nvery root of its influence; it is the first of the conditions which\njustify it in resisting the encroachments to which political power is\nalways tempted. Hence the classes to whose natural sympathies it looks\nfor support are those who, like itself, are excluded from political\nadministration.\n\nWomen, from their strongly sympathetic nature, are the original source\nof all moral influence; and they are peculiarly qualified by the\npassive character of their life to assist the action of the spiritual\npower in the family. In its essential function of education, their\nco-operation is of the highest importance. The education of young\nchildren is entrusted to their sole charge; and the education of more\nadvanced years simply consists in giving a more systematic shape to\nwhat the mother has already inculcated in childhood. As a wife, too,\nWoman assumes still more distinctly the spiritual function of counsel;\nshe softens by persuasion where the philosopher can only influence by\nconviction. In social meetings, again, the only mode of public life in\nwhich women can participate, they assist the spiritual power in the\nformation of Public Opinion, of which it is the systematic organ, by\napplying the principles which it inculcates to the case of particular\nactions or persons. In all these matters their influence will be far\nmore effectual, when men have done their duty to women by setting them\nfree from the necessity of gaining their own livelihood; and when women\non their side have renounced both power and wealth, as we see, so often\nexemplified among the working classes.\n\nThe affinity of the People with the philosophic power is less direct\nand less pure; but it will prove a vigorous ally in meeting the\nobstacles which the temporal power will inevitably oppose. The working\nclasses, having but little spare time and small individual influence,\ncannot, except on rare occasions, participate in the practical\nadministration of government, since all efficient government involves\nconcentration of power. Moral force, on the contrary, created as it is\nby free convergence of opinion, admits of, and indeed requires, the\nwidest ramification. Working men, owing to their freedom from practical\nresponsibilities and their unconcern for personal aggrandisement, are\nbetter disposed than their employers to broad views and to generous\nsympathies, and will therefore naturally associate themselves with\nthe spiritual power. It is they who will furnish the basis of a true\npublic opinion, so soon as they are enabled by Positive education,\nwhich is specially framed with a view to their case, to give greater\ndefiniteness to their aspirations. Their wants and their sympathies\nwill alike induce them to support the philosophic priesthood as the\nsystematic guardian of their interests against the governing classes.\nIn return for such protection they will bring the whole weight of their\ninfluence to assist the priesthood in its great social mission, the\nsubordination of Politics to Morals. In those exceptional cases where\nit becomes necessary for the moderating power to assume political\nfunctions, the popular element will of itself suffice for the\nemergency, thus exempting the philosophic element from participating\nin an anomaly from which its character could hardly fail to suffer,\nas would be the case also in a still higher degree with the feminine\ncharacter.\n\nThe direct influence of Reason over our imperfect nature is so feeble\nthat the new priesthood could not of itself ensure such respect for\nits theories as would bring them to any practical result. But the\nsympathies of women and of the people operating as they will in every\ntown and in every family, will be sufficient to ensure its efficacy\nin organizing that legitimate degree of moral pressure which the poor\nmay bring to bear upon the rich. Moreover, we may look, as one of\nthe results of our common system of education, for additional aid\nin the ranks of the governing classes themselves; for some of their\nnoblest members will volunteer their assistance to the spiritual\npower, forming, so to speak, a new order of chivalry. And yet, with\nall this, comprehensive as our organization of moral force may be, so\ngreat is the innate strength of the selfish instincts, that our success\nin solving the great human problem will always fall short of what we\nmight legitimately desire. To this conclusion we must come, in whatever\nway we regard the destiny of Man; but it should only encourage us to\ncombine our efforts still more strongly in order to ameliorate the\norder of Nature in its most important, that is, in its moral aspects,\nthese being at once the most modifiable and the most imperfect.\n\nThe highest progress of man and of society consists in gradual increase\nof our mastery over all our defects, especially the defects of our\nmoral nature. Among the nations of antiquity the progress in this\ndirection was but small; all that they could do was to prepare the\nway for it by certain necessary phases of intellectual and social\ndevelopment. The whole tendency of Greek and Roman society was such\nas made it impossible to form a distinct conception of the great\nproblem of our moral nature. In fact, Morals were with them invariably\nsubordinate to Politics. Nevertheless, it is moral progress which alone\ncan satisfy our nature; and in the Middle Ages it was recognized as the\nhighest aim of human effort, notwithstanding that its intellectual and\nsocial conditions were as yet very imperfectly realized. The creeds\nof the Middle Ages were too unreal and imperfect, the character of\nsociety was too military and aristocratic, to allow Morals and Politics\nto assume permanently their right relation. The attempt was made,\nhowever; and, inadequate as it was, it was enough to allow the people\nof the West to appreciate the fundamental principle involved in it, a\nprinciple destined to survive the opinions and the habits of life from\nwhich it arose. Its full weight could never be felt until the Positive\nspirit had extended beyond the elementary subjects to which it had been\nso long subjected, to the sphere of social truth; and had thus reached\nthe position at which a complete synthesis became possible. Equally\nessential was it that in those countries which had been incorporated\ninto the Western Empire, and had passed from it into Catholic\nFeudalism, war should be definitely superseded by industrial activity.\nIn the long period of transition which has elapsed since the Middle\nAges, both these conditions have been fulfilled, while at the same time\nthe old system has been gradually decomposed. Finally the great crisis\nof the Revolution has stimulated all advanced minds to reconsider,\nwith better intellectual and social principles, the same problem that\nChristianity and Chivalry had attempted. The radical solution of it was\nthen begun, and it is now completed, and enunciated in a systematic\nform by Positivism.\n\n [Humanity is the centre\n to which every aspect of\n Positivism converges]\n\nAll essential phases in the evolution of society answer to\ncorresponding phases in the growth of the individual, whether it has\nproceeded spontaneously or under systematic guidance, supposing always\nthat his development be complete. But it is not enough to prove the\nclose connexion which exists between all modes and degrees of human\nregeneration. We have yet to find a central point round which all will\nnaturally meet. In this point consists the unity of Positivism as a\nsystem of life. Unless it can be thus condensed, round one single\nprinciple, it will never wholly supersede the synthesis of Theology,\nnotwithstanding its superiority in the reality and stability of its\ncomponent parts, and in their homogeneity and coherence as a whole.\nThere should be a central point in the system towards which Feeling,\nReason, and Activity alike converge. The proof that Positivism\npossesses such a central point will remove the last obstacles to its\ncomplete acceptance, as the guide of private or of public life.\n\nSuch a centre we find in the great conception of Humanity, towards\nwhich every aspect of Positivism naturally converges. By it the\nconception of God will be entirely superseded, and a synthesis be\nformed, more complete and permanent than that provisionally established\nby the old religions. Through it the new doctrine becomes at once\naccessible to men\u2019s hearts in its full extent and application. From\ntheir heart it will penetrate their minds, and thus the immediate\nnecessity of beginning with a long and difficult course of study is\navoided, though this must of course be always indispensable to its\nsystematic teachers.\n\nThis central point of Positivism is even more moral than intellectual\nin character: it represents the principle of Love upon which the whole\nsystem rests. It is the peculiar characteristic of the Great Being\nwho is here set forth, to be compounded of separable elements. Its\nexistence depends therefore entirely upon mutual Love knitting together\nits various parts. The calculations of self-interest can never be\nsubstituted as a combining influence for the sympathetic instincts.\n\nYet the belief in Humanity, while stimulating Sympathy, at the same\ntime enlarges the scope and vigour of the Intellect. For it requires\nhigh powers of generalization to conceive clearly of this vast\norganism, as the result of spontaneous co-operation, abstraction made\nof all partial antagonisms. Reason, then, has its part in this central\ndogma as well as Love. It enlarges and completes our conception of the\nSupreme Being, by revealing to us the external and internal conditions\nof its existence.\n\nLastly, our active powers are stimulated by it no less than our\nfeelings and our reason. For since Humanity is so far more complex than\nany other organism, it will react more strongly and more continuously\non its environment, submitting to its influence and so modifying it.\nHence results Progress which is simply the development of Order, under\nthe influence of Love.\n\nThus, in the conception of Humanity, the three essential aspects of\nPositivism, its subjective principle, its objective dogma, and its\npractical object, are united. Towards Humanity, who is for us the only\ntrue Great Being, we, the conscious elements of whom she is composed,\nshall henceforth direct every aspect of our life, individual or\ncollective. Our thoughts will be devoted to the knowledge of Humanity,\nour affections to her love, our actions to her service.\n\nPositivists then may, more truly than theological believers of whatever\ncreed, regard life as a continuous and earnest act of worship; worship\nwhich will elevate and purify our feelings, enlarge and enlighten our\nthoughts, ennoble and invigorate our actions. It supplies a direct\nsolution, so far as a solution is possible, of the great problem of the\nMiddle Ages, the subordination of Politics to Morals. For this follows\nat once from the consecration now given to the principle that social\nsympathy should preponderate over self-love.\n\nThus Positivism becomes, in the true sense of the word, a Religion; the\nonly religion which is real and complete; destined therefore to replace\nall imperfect and provisional systems resting on the primitive basis of\ntheology.\n\nFor even the synthesis established by the old theocracies of Egypt and\nIndia was insufficient, because, being based on purely subjective\nprinciples it could never embrace practical life, which must always\nbe subordinated to the objective realities of the external world.\nTheocracy was thus limited at the outset to the sphere of thought\nand of feeling; and part even of this field was soon lost when Art\nbecame emancipated from theocratical control, showing a spontaneous\ntendency to its natural vocation of idealizing real life. Of science\nand of morality the priests were still left sole arbiters; but here,\ntoo, their influence materially diminished so soon as the discovery\nof the simpler abstract truths of Positive science gave birth to\nGreek Philosophy. Philosophy, though as yet necessarily restricted\nto the metaphysical stage, yet already stood forward as the rival of\nthe sacerdotal system. Its attempts to construct were in themselves\nfruitless; but they overthrew Polytheism, and ultimately transformed it\ninto Monotheism. In this the last phase of theology, the intellectual\nauthority of the priests was undermined no less deeply than the\nprinciple of their doctrine. They lost their hold upon Science, as\nlong ago they had lost their hold upon Art. All that remained to them\nwas the moral guidance of society; and even this was soon compromised\nby the progress of free thought; progress really due to the Positive\nspirit, although its systematic exponents still belong to the\nmetaphysical school.\n\n [With the discovery of\n sociological laws, a\n synthesis on the basis\n of Science becomes\n possible, science being now\n concentrated on the study of\n Humanity]\n\nWhen Science had expanded sufficiently to exist apart from Philosophy,\nit showed a rapid tendency towards a synthesis of its own, alike\nincompatible with metaphysics and with theology. It was late in\nappearing, because it required a long series of preliminary efforts:\nbut as it approached completion, it gradually brought the Positive\nspirit to bear upon the organization of practical life, from which that\nspirit had originally emanated. But thoroughly to effect this result\nwas impossible until the science of Sociology had been formed; and\nthis was done by my discovery of the law of historical development.\nHenceforth all true men of science will rise to the higher dignity\nof philosophers, and by so doing will necessarily assume something\nof the sacerdotal character, because the final result to which their\nresearches tend is the subordination of every subject of thought to the\nmoral principle; a result which leads us at once to the acceptance of a\ncomplete and homogeneous synthesis. Thus the philosophers of the future\nbecome priests of Humanity, and their moral and intellectual influence\nwill be far wider and more deeply rooted than that of any former\npriesthood. The primary condition of their spiritual authority is\nexclusion from political power, as a guarantee that theory and practice\nshall be systematically kept apart. A system in which the organs of\ncounsel and those of command are never identical cannot possibly\ndegenerate into any of the evils of theocracy.\n\nBy entirely renouncing wealth and worldly position, and that not as\nindividuals merely, but as a body, the priests of Humanity will occupy\na position of unparalleled dignity. For with their moral influence\nthey will combine what since the downfall of the old theocracies has\nalways been separated from it, the influence of superiority in art\nand science. Reason, Imagination, and Feeling will be brought into\nunison: and so united will react strongly on the imperious conditions\nof practical life; bringing it into closer accordance with the laws\nof universal morality, from which it is so prone to deviate. And the\ninfluence of this new modifying power will be the greater that the\nsynthesis on which it rests will have preceded and prepared the way for\nthe social system of the future; whereas theology could not arrive at\nits central principle, until the time of its decline was approaching.\nAll functions, then, that co-operate in the elevation of man will be\nregenerated by the Positive priesthood. Science, Poetry, Morality, will\nbe devoted to the study, the praise, and the love of Humanity, in order\nthat under their combined influence, our political action may be more\nunremittingly given to her service.\n\nWith such a mission, Science acquires a position of unparalleled\nimportance, as the sole means through which we come to know the nature\nand conditions of this Great Being, the worship of whom should be\nthe distinctive feature of our whole life. For this all-important\nknowledge, the study of Sociology would seem to suffice: but Sociology\nitself depends upon preliminary study, first of the outer world, in\nwhich the actions of Humanity take place; and secondly, of Man, the\nindividual agent.\n\nThe object of Positivist worship is not like that of theological\nbelievers an absolute, isolated, incomprehensible Being, whose\nexistence admits of no demonstration, or comparison with anything real.\nThe evidence of the Being here set forward is spontaneous, and is\nshrouded in no mystery. Before we can praise, love, and serve Humanity\nas we ought, we must know something of the laws which govern her\nexistence, an existence more complicated than any other of which we are\ncognizant.\n\n [Statical Aspects of\n Humanity]\n\nAnd by virtue of this complexity, Humanity possesses the attributes of\nvitality in a higher degree than any other organization; that is to\nsay, there is at once more intimate harmony of the component elements,\nand more complete subordination to the external world. Immense as is\nthe magnitude of this organism measured both in Time and Space, yet\neach of its parts carefully examined will show the general consensus of\nthe whole. At the same time it is more dependent than any other upon\nthe conditions of the outer world; in other words, upon the sum of the\nlaws that regulate inferior phenomena. Like other vital organisms,\nit submits to mathematical, astronomical, physical, chemical, and\nbiological conditions; and, in addition to these, is subject to special\nlaws of Sociology with which lower organisms are not concerned. But as\na further result of its higher complexity it reacts upon the world more\npowerfully; and is indeed in a true sense its chief. Scientifically\ndefined, then, it is truly the Supreme Being: the Being who manifests\nto the fullest extent all the highest attributes of life.\n\nBut there is yet another feature peculiar to Humanity, and one of\nprimary importance. That feature is, that the elements of which she is\ncomposed must always have an independent existence. In other organisms\nthe parts have no existence when severed from the whole; but this,\nthe greatest of all organisms, is made up of lives which can really\nbe separated. There is, as we have seen, harmony of parts as well as\nindependence, but the last of these conditions is as indispensable as\nthe first. Humanity would cease to be superior to other beings were it\npossible for her elements to become inseparable. The two conditions are\nequally necessary: but the difficulty of reconciling them is so great\nas to account at once for the slowness with which this highest of all\norganisms has been developed. It must not, however, be supposed that\nthe new Supreme Being is, like the old, merely a subjective result of\nour powers of abstraction. Its existence is revealed to us, on the\ncontrary, by close investigation of objective fact. Man indeed, as an\nindividual, cannot properly be said to exist, except in the exaggerated\nabstractions of modern metaphysicians. Existence in the true sense can\nonly be predicated of Humanity; although the complexity of her nature\nprevented men from forming a systematic conception of it, until the\nnecessary stages of scientific initiation had been passed. Bearing this\nconclusion in mind, we shall be able now to distinguish in Humanity\ntwo distinct orders of functions: those by which she acts upon the\nworld, and those which bind together her component parts. Humanity\ncannot herself act otherwise than by her separable members; but the\nefficiency of these members depends upon their working in co-operation,\nwhether instinctively or with design. We find, then, external functions\nrelating principally to the material existence of this organism; and\ninternal functions by which its movable elements are combined. This\ndistinction is but an application of the great theory, due to Bichat\u2019s\ngenius, of the distinction between the life of nutrition and the life\nof relation which we find in the individual organism. Philosophically\nit is the source from which we derive the great social principle\nof separation of spiritual from temporal power. The temporal power\ngoverns: it originates in the personal instincts, and it stimulates\nactivity. On it depends social Order. The spiritual power can only\nmoderate: it is the exponent of our social instincts, and it promotes\nco-operation, which is the guarantee of Progress. Of these functions of\nHumanity the first corresponds to the function of nutrition, the second\nto that of innervation in the individual organism.\n\n [Dynamical aspects]\n\nHaving now viewed our subject statically, we may come to its dynamical\naspect; reserving more detailed discussion for the third volume\nof this treatise, which deals with my fundamental theory of human\ndevelopment. The Great Being whom we worship is not immutable any\nmore than it is absolute. Its nature is relative; and, as such, is\neminently capable of growth. In a word it is the most vital of all\nliving beings known to us. It extends and becomes more complex by the\ncontinuous successions of generations. But in its progressive changes\nas well as in its permanent functions, it is subject to invariable\nlaws. And these laws considered, as we may now consider them, as a\nwhole, form a more sublime object of contemplation than the solemn\ninaction of the old Supreme Being, whose existence was passive except\nwhen interrupted by acts of arbitrary and unintelligible volition. Thus\nit is only by Positive science that we can appreciate this highest\nof all destinies to which all the fatalities of individual life are\nsubordinate. It is with this as with subjects of minor importance:\nsystematic study of the Past is necessary in order to determine the\nFuture, and so explain the tendencies of the Present. Let us then pass\nfrom the conception of Humanity as fully developed, to the history of\nits rise and progress; a history in which all other modes of progress\nare included. In ancient times the conception was incompatible with the\ntheological spirit and also with the military character of society,\nwhich involved the slavery of the productive classes. The feeling of\nPatriotism, restricted as it was at first, was the only prelude then\npossible to the recognition of Humanity. From this narrow nationality\nthere arose in the Middle Ages the feeling of universal brotherhood,\nas soon as military life had entered on its defensive phase, and all\nsupernatural creeds had spontaneously merged into a monotheistic form\ncommon to the whole West. The growth of Chivalry, and the attempt made\nto effect a permanent separation of the two social powers, announced\nalready the subordination of Politics to Morals, and thus showed that\nthe conception of Humanity was in direct course of preparation. But the\nunreal and anti-social nature of the mediaeval creed, and the military\nand aristocratic character of feudal society, made it impossible to\ngo very far in this direction. The abolition of personal slavery was\nthe most essential result of this important period. Society could\nnow assume its industrial character; and feelings of fraternity were\nencouraged by modes of life in which all classes alike participated.\nMeanwhile, the growth of the Positive spirit was proceeding, and\npreparing the way for the establishment of Social Science, by which\nalone all other Positive studies should be systematized. This being\ndone, the conception of the Great Being became possible. It was with\nreference to subjects of a speculative and scientific nature that the\nconception first arose in a distinct shape. As early as two centuries\nago, Pascal spoke of the human race as one Man.[11] Amidst the\ninevitable decline of the theological and military system, men became\nconscious of the movement of society, which had now advanced through\nso many phases; and the notion of Progress as a distinctive feature\nof Humanity became admitted. Still the conception of Humanity as the\nbasis for a new synthesis was impossible until the crisis of the French\nRevolution. That crisis on the one hand proved the urgent necessity\nfor social regeneration, and on the other gave birth to the only\nphilosophy capable of effecting it. Thus our consciousness of the new\nGreat Being has advanced co-extensively with its growth. Our present\nconception of it is as much the measure of our social progress as it is\nthe summary of Positive knowledge.\n\n [Inorganic and organic\n sciences elevated by their\n connexion with the supreme\n science of Humanity]\n\nIn speaking of the dignity of Science when regenerated by this lofty\napplication of it, I do not refer solely to the special science of\nSocial phenomena, but also to the preliminary studies of Life and\nof the Inorganic World, both of which form an essential portion\nof Positive doctrine. A social mission of high importance will be\nrecognized in the most elementary sciences, whether it be for the\nsake of their method or for the value of their scientific results.\nTrue, the religion of Humanity will lead to the entire abolition of\nscientific Academies, because their tendency, especially in France, is\nequally hurtful to science and morality. They encourage mathematicians\nto confine their attention exclusively to the first step in the\nscientific scale; and biologists to pursue their studies without any\nsolid basis or definite purpose. Special studies carried on without\nregard for the encyclop\u00e6dic principles which determine the relative\nvalue of knowledge, and its bearing on human life, will be condemned\nby all men of right feeling and good sense. Such men will feel the\nnecessity of resisting the morbid narrowness of mind and heart to which\nthe anarchy of our times inevitably leads. But the abolition of the\nAcademic system will only ensure a larger measure of respect for all\nscientific researches of real value, on whatever subject. The study\nof Mathematics, the value of which is at present negatived by its\nhardening tendency, will now manifest its latent moral efficacy, as\nthe only sure basis for firm conviction; a state of mind that can never\nbe perfectly attained in more complex subjects of thought, except by\nthose who have experienced it in the simpler subjects. When the close\nconnexion of all scientific knowledge becomes more generally admitted,\nHumanity will reject political teachers who are ignorant of Geometry,\nas well as geometricians who neglect Sociology. Biology meanwhile will\nlose its dangerous materialism, and will receive all the respect due to\nits close connexion with social science and its important bearing on\nthe essential doctrines of Positivism. To attempt to explain the life\nof Humanity without first examining the lower forms of life, would be\nas serious an error as to study Biology without regard to the social\npurpose which Biology is intended to serve. Science has now become\nindispensable to the establishment of moral truth, and at the same time\nits subordination to the inspirations of the heart is fully recognized;\nthus it takes its place henceforward among the most essential functions\nof the priesthood of Humanity. The supremacy of true Feeling will\nstrengthen Reason, and will receive in turn from Reason a systematic\nsanction. Natural philosophy, besides its evident value in regulating\nthe spontaneous action of Humanity, has a direct tendency to elevate\nhuman nature; it draws from the outer world that basis of fixed truth\nwhich is so necessary to control our various desires.\n\nThe study of Humanity therefore, directly or indirectly, is for the\nfuture the permanent aim of Science; and Science is now in a true sense\nconsecrated, as the source from which the universal religion receives\nits principles. It reveals to us not merely the nature and conditions\nof the Great Being, but also its destiny and the successive phases of\nits growth. The aim is high and arduous; it requires continuous and\ncombined exertion of all our faculties; but it ennobles the simplest\nprocesses of scientific investigation by connecting them permanently\nwith subjects of the deepest interest. The scrupulous exactness\nand rigorous caution of the Positive method, which when applied to\nunimportant subjects seem almost puerile, will be valued and insisted\non when seen to be necessary for the efficacy of efforts relating to\nour most essential wants. Rationalism, in the true sense of the word,\nso far from being incompatible with right feeling, strengthens and\ndevelops it, by placing all the facts of the case, in social questions\nespecially, in their true light.\n\n [The new religion is even\n more favourable to Art than\n to Science]\n\nBut, however honourable the rank which Science when regenerated will\nhold in the new religion, the sanction given to Poetry will be even\nmore direct and unqualified, because the function assigned to it is\none which is more practical and which touches us more nearly. Its\nfunction will be the praise of Humanity. All previous efforts of Art\nhave been but the prelude to this, its natural mission; a prelude often\nimpatiently performed since Art threw off the yoke of theocracy at an\nearlier period than Science. Polytheism was the only religion under\nwhich it had free scope: there it could idealize all the passions\nof our nature, no attempt being made to conceal the similarity of\nthe gods to the human type. The change from Polytheism to Monotheism\nwas unacceptable to Art, because it narrowed its field; but towards\nthe close of the Middle Ages it began to shake off the influence of\nobscure and chimerical beliefs, and take possession of its proper\nsphere. The field that now lies before it in the religion of Humanity\nis inexhaustible. It is called upon to idealize the social life of\nMan, which, in the time of the nations of antiquity, had not been\nsufficiently developed to inspire the highest order of poetry.\n\n [Poetic portraiture of the\n new Supreme Being, and\n contrast with the old]\n\nIn the first place it will be of the greatest service in enabling men\nto realize the conception of Humanity, subject only to the condition\nof not overstepping the fundamental truths of Science. Science\nunassisted cannot define the nature and destinies of this Great Being\nwith sufficient clearness. In our religion the object of worship must\nbe conceived distinctly, in order to be ardently loved and zealously\nserved. Science, especially in subjects of this nature, is confined\nwithin narrow limits; it leaves inevitable deficiencies which esthetic\ngenius must supply. And there are certain qualities in Art as opposed\nto Science, which specially qualify it for the representation of\nHumanity. For Humanity is distinguished from other forms of life by\nthe combination of independence with co-operation, attributes which\nalso are natural to Poetry. For while Poetry is more sympathetic than\nScience, its productions have far more individuality; the genius of\ntheir author is more strongly marked in them, and the debt to his\npredecessors and contemporaries is less apparent. Thus the synthesis on\nwhich the inauguration of the final religion depends, is one in which\nArt will participate more than Science, Science furnishing merely the\nnecessary basis. Its influence will be even greater than in the times\nof Polytheism; for powerful as Art appeared to be in those times, it\ncould in reality do nothing but embellish the fables to which the\nconfused ideas of theocracy had given rise. By its aid we shall for the\nfirst time rise at last to a really human point of view, and be enabled\ndistinctly to understand the essential attributes of the Great Being of\nwhom we are members. The material power of Humanity and the successive\nphases of her physical, her intellectual, and, above all, her moral\nprogress, will each in turn be depicted. Without the difficulties of\nanalytical study, we shall gain a clear knowledge of her nature and her\nconditions, by the poet\u2019s description of her future destiny, of her\nconstant struggle against painful fatalities, which have at last become\na source of happiness and greatness, of the slow growth of her infancy,\nof her lofty hopes now so near fulfilment. The history of universal\nLove, the soul by which this Great Being is animated; the history, that\nis, of the marvellous advance of man, individually or socially, from\nbrutish appetite to pure unselfish sympathy, is of itself an endless\ntheme for the poetry of the future.\n\nComparisons, too, may be instituted, in which the poet, without\nspecially attacking the old religion, will indicate the superiority\nof the new. The attributes of the new Great Being may be forcibly\nillustrated, especially during the time of transition, by contrast with\nthe inferiority of her various predecessors. All theological types are\nabsolute, indefinite, and immutable; consequently in none of them has\nit been possible to combine to a satisfactory extent the attributes of\ngoodness, wisdom, and power. Nor can we conceive of their combination,\nexcept in a Being whose existence is a matter of certainty, and who is\nsubject to invariable laws. The gods of Polytheism were endowed with\nenergy and sympathy, but possessed neither dignity nor morality. They\nwere superseded by the sublime deity of Monotheism, who was sometimes\nrepresented as inert and passionless, sometimes as impenetrable and\ninflexible. But the new Supreme Being, having a real existence, an\nexistence relative and modifiable, admits of being more distinctly\nconceived than the old; and the influence of the conception will be\nequally strong and far more elevating. Each one of us will recognize\nin it a power superior to his own, a power on which the whole destiny\nof his life depends, since the life of the individual is in every\nrespect subordinate to the evolution of the race. But the knowledge\nof this power has not the crushing effect of the old conception of\nomnipotence. For every great or good man will feel that his own life\nis an indispensable element in the great organism. The supremacy of\nHumanity is but the result of individual co-operation; her power is not\nsupreme, it is only superior to that of all beings whom we know. Our\nlove for her is tainted by no degrading fears, yet it is always coupled\nwith the most sincere reverence. Perfection is in no wise claimed for\nher; we study her natural defects with care in order to remedy them as\nfar as possible. The love we bear to her is a feeling as noble as it\nis strong; it calls for no degrading expressions of adulation, but it\ninspires us with unremitting zeal for moral improvement. But these and\nother advantages of the new religion, though they can be indicated by\nthe philosopher, need the poet to display them in their full light.\nThe moral grandeur of man when freed from the chimeras that oppress\nhim, was foreseen by Goethe, and still more clearly by Byron. But\nthe work of these men was one of destruction; and their types could\nonly embody the spirit of revolt. Poetry must rise above the negative\nstage in which, owing to the circumstances of the time, their genius\nwas arrested, and must embrace in the Positive spirit the system of\nsociological and other laws to which human development is subject,\nbefore it can adequately portray the new Man in his relation to the new\nGod.\n\n [Organization of festivals,\n representing statical\n and dynamical aspects of\n humanity]\n\nThere is yet another way in which Art may serve the cause of religion;\nthat is, in organizing the festivals, whether private or public, of\nwhich, to a great extent, the worship of Humanity will consist. For\nthis purpose esthetic talent is far more required than scientific, the\nobject in view being to reveal the nature of the great Organism more\nclearly, by presenting all aspects of its existence, static or dynamic,\nin idealized forms.\n\nThese festivals, then, should be of two kinds, corresponding to the two\nessential aspects of Humanity; the first illustrating her existence,\nthe second her action. Thus we shall stimulate both the elements\nof true social feeling; the love of Order, namely, and the love of\nProgress. In our static festivals social Order and the feeling of\nSolidarity, will be illustrated; the dynamic festivals will explain\nsocial Progress, and inspire the sense of historical Continuity.\nTaken together, their periodic recurrence will form a continuation\nof Positive education. They will develop and confirm the principles\ninstilled in youth. But there will be nothing didactic in their form;\nsince it is of the essence of Art not to instruct otherwise than by\ngiving pleasure. Of course the regular recurrence of these festivals\nwill not prevent any modifications which may be judged necessary to\nadapt them to special incidents that may from time to time arise.\n\nThe festivals representing Order will necessarily take more abstract\nand austere forms than those of Progress. It will be their object to\nrepresent the statical relations by which the great Organism preserves\nits unity, and the various aspects of its animating principle, Love.\nThe most universal and the most solemn of these festivals will be\nthe feast of Humanity, which will be held throughout the West at the\nbeginning of the new year, thus consecrating the only custom which\nstill remains in general use to relieve the prosaic dullness of modern\nlife. In this feast, which celebrates the most comprehensiveness of\nall unions, every branch of the human race will at some future time\nparticipate. In the same month there might be three festivals of a\nsecondary order, representing the minor degrees of association, the\nNation, the Province, and the Town. Giving this first month to the\ndirect celebration of the social tie, we might devote the first days of\nthe four succeeding months to the four principal domestic relations,\nConnubial, Parental, Filial, and Fraternal. In the sixth month, the\nhonourable position of domestic service would receive its due measure\nof respect.\n\nThese would be the static festivals; taken together they would form\na representation of the true theory of our individual and social\nnature, together with the principles of moral duty to which that theory\ngives rise. No direct mention is made of the personal instincts,\nnotwithstanding their preponderance, because it is the main object\nof Positive worship to bring them under the control of the social\ninstincts. Personal virtues are by no means neglected in Positive\neducation; but to make them the objects of any special celebration,\nwould only stimulate egotistic feeling. Indirectly their value is\nrecognized in every part of our religious system, in the reaction which\nthey exercise upon our generous sympathies. Their omission, therefore,\nimplies no real deficiency in this ideal portraiture of human faculties\nand duties. Again, no special announcement of the subordination of\nHumanity to the laws of the External World is needed. The consciousness\nof this external power pervades every part of the Positive system; it\ncontrols our desires, directs our speculations, stimulates our actions.\nThe simple fact of the recurrence of our ceremonies at fixed periods,\ndetermined by the Earth\u2019s motion, is enough to remind us of our\ninevitable subjection to the fatalities of the External World.\n\nAs the static festivals represent Morality, so the dynamic festivals,\nthose of Progress, will represent History. In these the worship of\nHumanity assumes a more concrete and animated form; as it will consist\nprincipally in rendering honour to the noblest types of each phase of\nhuman development. It is desirable, however, that each of the more\nimportant phases should be represented in itself, independently of the\ngreatness of any individual belonging to it. Of the months unoccupied\nby static festivals, three might be given to the principal phases of\nthe Past, Fetichism, Polytheism, and Monotheism; and a fourth to the\ncelebration of the Future, the normal state to which all these phases\nhave been tending.\n\nForming thus the chain of historical succession, we may consecrate\neach month to some one of the types who best represent the various\nstages. I omit, however, some explanations of detail given in the\nfirst edition of this General View, written at the time when I had\nnot made the distinction between the abstract and concrete worship\nsufficiently clear. A few months after its publication, in 1848,\nthe circumstances of the time induced me to frame a complete system\nof commemoration applicable to Western Europe, under the title of\n_Positivist Calendar_[12]. Of this I shall speak more at length in the\nfourth volume of the present treatise. Its success has fully justified\nme in anticipating this part of my subject. To it I now refer the\nreader, recommending him to familiarize himself with the provisional\narrangement of the new Western year then put forward and already\nadopted by most Positivists.\n\n [Worship of the dead.\n Commemoration of their\n service]\n\nBut the practice need not be restricted to names of European\nimportance. It is applicable in its degree to each separate province,\nand even to private life. Catholicism offers two institutions in which\nthe religion of the family connects itself with public worship in\nits most comprehensive sense. There is a day appointed in Catholic\ncountries in which all are in the habit of visiting the tombs of those\ndear to them; finding consolation for their grief by sharing it with\nothers. To this custom Positivists devote the last day of the year. The\nworking classes of Paris give every year a noble proof that complete\nfreedom of thought is in no respect compatible with worship of the\ndead, which in their case is unconnected with any system. Again there\nis the institution of baptismal names, which though little thought\nof at present, will be maintained and improved by Positivism. It is\nan admirable mode of impressing on men the connexion of private with\npublic life, by furnishing every one with a type for his own personal\nimitation. Here the superiority of the new religion is very apparent;\nsince the choice of a name will not be limited to any time or country.\nIn this, as in other cases, the absolute spirit of Catholicism proved\nfatal to its prospects of becoming universal.\n\nThese brief remarks will be enough to illustrate the two classes of\nfestivals instituted by Positivism. In every week of the year some new\naspect of Order or of Progress will be held up to public veneration;\nand in each the link connecting public and private worship will be\nfound in the adoration of Woman. In this esthetic side of Positive\nreligion everything tends to strengthen its fundamental principle of\nLove. All the resources of Poetry, and of the other arts of sound and\nform, will be invoked to give full and regular expression to it. The\ndominant feeling is always that of deep reverence proceeding from\nsincere acknowledgment of benefits received. Our worship will be alike\nfree from mysticism and from affectation. While striving to surpass our\nancestors, we shall yet render due honour to all their services, and\nlook with respect upon their systems of life. Influenced no longer by\nchimeras which though comforting to former times are now degrading, we\nhave now no obstacle to becoming as far as possible incorporate with\nthe Great Being whom we worship. By commemoration of past services we\nstrengthen the desire inherent in all of us to prolong our existence\nin the only way which is really in our power. The fact that all human\naffairs are subject to one fundamental law, as soon as it becomes\nfamiliarly known, enables and encourages each one of us to live in\na true sense in the Past and even in the Future; as those cannot do\nwho attribute the events of life to the agency of an arbitrary and\nimpenetrable Will. The praise given to our predecessors will stimulate\na noble rivalry; inspiring all with the desire to become themselves\nincorporate into this mighty Being whose life endures through all time,\nand who is formed of the dead far more than the living. When the system\nof commemoration is fully developed, no worthy co-operator will be\nexcluded, however humble his sphere; whether limited to his family or\ntown, or extending to his country or to the whole West. The education\nof Positivists will soon convince them that such recompense for\nhonourable conduct is ample compensation for the imaginary hopes which\ninspired their predecessors.\n\nTo live in others is, in the truest sense of the word, life. Indeed the\nbest part of our own life is passed thus. As yet this truth has not\nbeen grasped firmly, because the social point of view has never yet\nbeen brought systematically before us. But the religion of Humanity,\nby giving an esthetic form to the Positivist synthesis, will make it\nintelligible to minds of every class: and will enable us to enjoy the\nuntold charm springing from the sympathies of union and of continuity\nwhen allowed free play. To prolong our life indefinitely in the Past\nand Future, so as to make it more perfect in the Present, is abundant\ncompensation for the illusions of our youth which have now passed away\nfor ever. Science which deprived us of these imaginary comforts, itself\nin its maturity supplies the solid basis for consolation of a kind\nunknown before; the hope of becoming incorporate into the Great Being\nwhose static and dynamic laws it has revealed. On this firm foundation\nPoetry raises the structure of public and private worship; and thus\nall are made active partakers of this universal life, which minds\nstill fettered by theology cannot understand. Thus imagination, while\naccepting the guidance of reason, will exercise a far more efficient\nand extensive influence than in the days of Polytheism. For the priests\nof Humanity the sole purpose of Science is to prepare the field for\nArt, whether esthetic or industrial. This object once attained, poetic\nstudy or composition will form the chief occupation of our speculative\nfaculties. The poet is now called to his true mission, which is to give\nbeauty and grandeur to human life, by inspiring a deeper sense of our\nrelation to Humanity. Poetry will form the basis of the ceremonies in\nwhich the new priesthood will solemnise more efficiently than the old,\nthe most important events of private life: especially Birth, Marriage,\nand Death; so as to impress the family as well as the state with the\nsense of this relation. Forced as we are henceforth to concentrate all\nour hopes and efforts upon the real life around us, we shall feel more\nstrongly than ever that all the powers of Imagination as well as those\nof Reason, Feeling, and Activity, are required in its service.\n\n [All the arts may co-operate\n in the service of religion]\n\nPoetry once raised to its proper place, the arts of sound and form,\nwhich render in a more vivid way the subjects which Poetry has\nsuggested, will soon follow. Their sphere, like that of Poetry, will be\nthe celebration of Humanity; an exhaustless field, leaving no cause to\nregret the chimeras which, in the present empirical condition of these\narts, are still considered indispensable. Music in modern times has\nbeen limited almost entirely to the expression of individual emotions.\nIts full power has never been felt in public life, except in the\nsolitary instance of the _Marseillaise_, in which the whole spirit of\nour great Revolution stands recorded. But in the worship of Humanity,\nbased as it is on Positive education, and animated by the spirit of\nPoetry, Music, as the most social of the special arts, will aid in the\nrepresentation of the attributes and destinies of Humanity, and in the\nglorification of great historical types. Painting and Sculpture will\nhave the same object; they will enable us to realize the conception of\nHumanity with greater clearness and precision than would be possible\nfor Poetry, even with the aid of Music. The beautiful attempts of the\nartists of the sixteenth century, men who had very little theological\nbelief, to embody the Christian ideal of Woman, may be regarded as\nan unconscious prelude to the representation of Humanity, in the\nform which of all others is most suitable. Under the impulse of\nthese feelings, the sculptor will overcome the technical difficulties\nof representing figures in groups, and will adopt such subjects by\npreference. Hitherto this has only been effected in bas-reliefs,\nworks which stand midway between painting and sculpture. There are,\nhowever, some splendid exceptions from which we can imagine the scope\nand grandeur of the latter art, when raised to its true position.\nStatuesque groups, whether the figures are joined or, as is preferable,\nseparate, will enable the sculptor to undertake many great subjects\nfrom which he has been hitherto debarred.\n\nIn Architecture the influence of Positivism will be felt less rapidly;\nbut ultimately this art like the rest will be made available for the\nnew religion. The buildings erected for the service of God may for\na time suffice for the worship of Humanity, in the same way that\nChristian worship was carried on at first in Pagan temples as they\nwere gradually vacated. But ultimately buildings will be required more\nspecially adapted to a religion in which all the functions connected\nwith education and worship are so entirely different. What these\nbuildings will be it would be useless at present to inquire. It is\nless easy to foresee the Positivist ideal in Architecture than in any\nother arts. And it must remain uncertain until the new principles\nof education have been generally spread, and until the Positivist\nreligion, having received all the aid that Poetry, Music, and the arts\nof Form can give, has become the accepted faith of Western Europe.\nWhen the more advanced nations are heartily engaged in the cause,\nthe true temples of Humanity will soon arise. By that time mental\nand moral regeneration will have advanced far enough to commence the\nreconstruction of all political institutions. Until then the new\nreligion will avail itself of Christian churches as these gradually\nbecome vacant.\n\n [Positivism is the successor\n of Christianity, and\n surpasses it]\n\nArt then, as well as Science, partakes in the regenerating influence\nwhich Positivism derives from its synthetic principle of Love. Both\nare called to their proper functions, the one to contemplate, the\nother to glorify Humanity, in order that we may love and serve her\nmore perfectly. Yet while the intellect is thus made the servant of\nthe heart, far from being weakened by this subordinate position, it\nfinds in it an exhaustless field, in which the value of its labours\nis amply recognized. Each of its faculties is called directly into\nplay, and is supplied with its appropriate employment. Poetry\ninstitutes the forms of the worship of Humanity; Science supplies the\nprinciples on which those forms are framed, by connecting them with\nthe laws of the external world. Imagination, while ceasing to usurp\nthe place of Reason, yet enhances rather than diminishes its original\ninfluence, which the new philosophy shows to be as beneficial as it\nis natural. And thus human life at last attains that state of perfect\nharmony which has been so long sought for in vain, and which consists\nin the direction of all our faculties to one common purpose under\nthe supremacy of Affection. At the same time all former efforts of\nImagination and Reason, even when they clashed with each other, are\nfully appreciated; because we see that they developed our powers,\nthat they taught us the conditions of their equilibrium, and made it\nmanifest that nothing but that equilibrium was wanting to allow them to\nwork together for our welfare. Above all do we recognize the immense\nvalue of the mediaeval attempt to form a complete synthesis, although,\nnotwithstanding all the results of Greek and Roman civilization, the\ntime was not yet ripe for it. To renew that attempt upon a sounder\nbasis, and with surer prospects of success, is the object of those\nwho found the religion of Humanity. Widely different as are their\ncircumstances and the means they employ, they desire to regard\nthemselves as the successors of the great men who conducted the\nprogressive movement of Catholicism. For those alone are worthy to be\ncalled successors, who continue or carry into effect the undertakings\nwhich former times have left unfinished; the title is utterly unmerited\nby blind followers of obsolete dogmas, which have long ceased to bear\nany relation to their original purpose, and which their very authors,\nif now living, would disavow.\n\nBut while bearing in mind our debt to Catholicism, we need not omit\nto recognize how largely Positivism gains by comparison with it. Full\njustice will be done to the aims of Catholicism, and to the excellence\nof its results. But the whole effect of Positivist worship will be\nto make men feel clearly how far superior in every respect is the\nsynthesis founded on the Love of Humanity to that founded on the Love\nof God.\n\nChristianity satisfied no part of our nature fully, except the\naffections. It rejected Imagination, it shrank from Reason; and\ntherefore its power was always contested, and could not last. Even\nin its own sphere of affection, its principles never lent themselves\nto that social direction which the Catholic priesthood, with such\nremarkable persistency, endeavoured to give to them. The aim which it\nset before men, being unreal and personal, was ill-suited to a life of\nreality and of social sympathy. It is true that the universality of\nthis supreme affection was indirectly a bond of union; but only when\nit was not at variance with true social feeling. And from the nature\nof the system, opposition between these two principles was the rule,\nand harmony the exception; since the Love of God, even as viewed by\nthe best Catholic types, required in almost all cases the abandonment\nof every other passion. The moral value of such a synthesis consisted\nsolely in the discipline which it established; discipline of whatever\nkind being preferable to anarchy, which would have given free scope\nto all the lowest propensities. But notwithstanding all the tender\nfeeling of the best mystics, the affection which to them was supreme\nadmitted of no real reciprocity. Moreover, the stupendous nature of\nthe rewards and penalties by which every precept in this arbitrary\nsystem was enforced, tended to weaken the character and to taint\nour noblest impulses. The essential merit of the system was that it\nwas the first attempt to exercise systematic control over our moral\nnature. The discipline of Polytheism was usually confined to actions:\nsometimes it extended to habits; but it never touched the affections\nfrom which both habits and actions spring. Christianity took the best\nmeans of effecting its purpose that were then available; but it was\nnot successful, except so far as it gave indirect encouragement to\nour higher feelings. And so vague and absolute were its principles,\nthat even this would have been impossible, but for the wisdom of the\npriesthood, who for a long time saved society from the dangers incident\nto so arbitrary a system. But at the close of the Middle Ages, when\nthe priesthood became retrograde, and lost at once their morality and\ntheir freedom, the doctrine was left to its own impotence, and rapidly\ndegenerated till it became a chronic source of degradation and of\ndiscord.\n\nBut the synthesis based upon Love of Humanity has too deep a foundation\nin Positive truth to be liable to similar decline; and its influence\ncannot but increase so long as the progress of our race endures.\nThe Great Being, who is its object, tolerates the most searching\ninquiry, and yet does not restrict the scope of Imagination. The\nlaws which regulate her existence are now known to us; and the more\ndeeply her nature is investigated, the stronger is our consciousness\nof her reality and of the greatness of her benefits. The thought of\nher stimulates all the powers of Imagination, and thus enables us to\nparticipate in a measure in the universality of her life, throughout\nthe whole extent of Time and Space of which we have any real knowledge.\nAll our real intellectual results, whether in art or science, are\nalike co-ordinated by the religion of Humanity; for it furnishes the\nsole bond of connexion by which permanent harmony can be established\nbetween our thoughts and our feelings. It is the only system which\nwithout artifice and without arbitrary restriction, can establish the\npreponderance of Affection over Thought and Action. It sets forth\nsocial feeling as the first principle of morality; without ignoring\nthe natural superiority in strength of the personal instincts. To live\nfor others it holds to be the highest happiness. To become incorporate\nwith Humanity, to sympathize with all her former phases, to foresee\nher destinies in the future, and to do what lies in us to forward\nthem; this is what it puts before us as the constant aim of life.\nSelf-love in the Positive system is regarded as the great infirmity of\nour nature: an infirmity which unremitting discipline on the part of\neach individual and of society may materially palliate, but will never\nradically cure. The degree to which this mastery over our own nature is\nattained is the truest standard of individual or social progress, since\nit has the closest relation to the existence of the Great Being, and to\nthe happiness of the elements that compose it.\n\nInspired as it is by sincere gratitude, which increases the more\ncarefully the grounds for it are examined, the worship of Humanity\nraises Prayer for the first time above the degrading influence of\nself-interest. We pray to the Supreme Being; but only to express our\ndeep thankfulness for her present and past benefits, which are an\nearnest of still greater blessings in the future. Doubtless it is a\nfact of human nature, that habitual expression of such feelings reacts\nbeneficially on our moral nature; and so far we, too, find in Prayer\na noble recompense. But it is one that can suggest to us no selfish\nthoughts, since it cannot come at all unless it come spontaneously.\nOur highest happiness consists in Love; and we know that more than any\nother feeling love may be strengthened by exercise; that alone of all\nfeelings it admits of, and increases with, simultaneous expansion in\nall. Humanity will become more familiar to us than the old gods were to\nthe Polytheists, yet without the loss of dignity which, in their case,\nresulted from familiarity. Her nature has in it nothing arbitrary,\nyet she co-operates with us in the worship that we render, since in\nhonouring her we receive back \u2018grace for grace\u2019. Homage accepted by\nthe Deity of former times laid him open to the charge of puerile\nvanity. But the new Deity will accept praise only where it is deserved,\nand will derive from it equal benefit with ourselves. This perfect\nreciprocity of affection and of influence is peculiar to Positive\nreligion, because in it alone the object of worship is a Being whose\nnature is relative, modifiable, and perfectible; a Being of whom her\nown worshippers form a part, and the laws of whose existence, being\nmore clearly known than theirs, allow her desires and her tendencies to\nbe more distinctly foreseen.\n\n [Superiority of Positive\n morality]\n\nThe morality of Positive religion combines all the advantages of\nspontaneousness with those of demonstration. It is so thoroughly\nhuman in all its parts, as to preclude all the subterfuges by which\nrepentance for transgression is so often stifled or evaded. By pointing\nout distinctly the way in which each individual action reacts upon\nsociety, it forces us to judge our own conduct without lowering\nour standard. Some might think it too gentle, and not sufficiently\nvigorous; yet the love by which it is inspired is no passive feeling,\nbut a principle which strongly stimulates our energies to the full\nextent compatible with the attainment of that highest good to which\nit is ever tending. Accepting the truths of science, it teaches that\nwe must look to our own unremitting activity for the only providence\nby which the rigour of our destiny can be alleviated. We know well\nthat the great Organism, superior though it be to all beings known\nto us, is yet under the dominion of inscrutable laws, and is in no\nrespect either absolutely perfect or absolutely secure from danger.\nEvery condition of our existence, whether those of the external world\nor those of our own nature, might at some time be compromised. Even\nour moral and intellectual faculties, on which our highest interests\ndepend, are no exception to this truth. Such contingencies are always\npossible, and yet they are not to prevent us from living nobly; they\nmust not lessen our love, our thought, or our efforts for Humanity;\nthey must not overwhelm us with anxiety, nor urge us to useless\ncomplaint. But the very principles which demand this high standard of\ncourage and resignation, are themselves well calculated to maintain\nit. For by making us fully conscious of the greatness of man, and by\nsetting us free from the degrading influences of fear, they inspire\nus with keen interest in our efforts, inadequate though they be,\nagainst the pressure of fatalities which are not always beyond our\npower to modify. And thus the reaction of these fatalities upon our\ncharacter is turned at last to a most beneficial use. It prevents\nalike overweening anxiety for our own interests and dull indifference\nto them; whereas, in theological and metaphysical systems, even when\ninculcating self-denial, there is always a dangerous tendency to\nconcentrate thought on personal considerations. Dignified reaction\nwhere modification of them is possible; such is the moral standard\nwhich Positivism puts forward for individuals and for society.\n\nCatholicism, notwithstanding the radical defects of its doctrine, has\nunconsciously been influenced by the modern spirit; and at the close\nof the Middle Ages was tending in a direction similar to that here\ndescribed, although its principles were inconsistent with any formal\nrecognition of it. It is only in the countries that have been preserved\nfrom Protestantism that any traces are left of these faint efforts\nof the priesthood to rise above their own theories. The Catholic God\nwould gradually change into a feeble and imperfect representation of\nHumanity, were not the clergy so degraded socially as to be unable\nto participate in the spontaneous feelings of the community. It is a\ntendency too slightly marked to lead to any important result; yet it\nis a striking proof of the new direction which men\u2019s minds and hearts\nare unconsciously taking in countries which are often supposed to be\naltogether left behind in the march of modern thought. The clearest\nindication of it is in their acceptance of the worship of Woman,\nwhich is the first step towards the worship of Humanity. Since the\ntwelfth century, the influence of the Virgin, especially in Spain and\nItaly, has been constantly on the increase. The priesthood have often\nprotested against it, but without effect; and sometimes they have\nfound it necessary to sanction it, for the sake of preserving their\nauthority. The special and privileged adoration which this beautiful\ncreation of Poetry has received, could not but produce a marked change\nin the spirit of Catholicism. It may serve as a connecting link between\nthe religion of our ancestors and that of our descendants, the Virgin\nbecoming gradually regarded as a personification of Humanity. Little,\nhowever, will be done in this direction by the established priesthood,\nwhether in Italy or Spain. We must look to the purer agency of women,\nwho will be the means of introducing Positivism among our Southern\nbrethren.\n\nAll the points, then, in which the morality of Positive science excels\nthe morality of revealed religion are summed up in the substitution\nof Love of Humanity for Love of God. It is a principle as adverse\nto metaphysics as to theology, since it excludes all personal\nconsiderations, and places happiness, whether for the individual or\nfor society, in constant exercise of kindly feeling. To love Humanity\nmay be truly said to constitute the whole duty of Man; provided it\nbe clearly understood what such love really implies, and what are\nthe conditions required for maintaining it. The victory of Social\nFeeling over our innate Self-love is rendered possible only by a slow\nand difficult training of the heart, in which the intellect must\nco-operate. The most important part of this training consists in the\nmutual love of Man and Woman, with all other family affections which\nprecede and follow it. But every aspect of morality, even the personal\nvirtues, are included in love of Humanity. It furnishes the best\nmeasure of their relative importance, and the surest method for laying\ndown incontestable rules of conduct. And thus we find the principles\nof systematic morality to be identical with those of spontaneous\nmorality, a result which renders Positive doctrine equally accessible\nto all.\n\n [Rise of the new Spiritual\n power]\n\nScience, therefore, Poetry, and Morality, will alike be regenerated\nby the new religion, and will ultimately form one harmonious whole,\non which the destinies of Man will henceforth rest. With women, to\nwhom the first germs of spiritual power are due, this consecration\nof the rational and imaginative faculties to the source of feeling\nhas always existed spontaneously. But to realize it in social life\nit must be brought forward in a systematic form as part of a general\ndoctrine. This is what the mediaeval system attempted upon the basis of\nMonotheism. A moral power arose composed of the two elements essential\nto such a power, the sympathetic influence of women in the family, the\nsystematic influence of the priesthood on public life. As a preliminary\nattempt the Catholic system was most beneficial; but it could not last,\nbecause the synthesis on which it rested was imperfect and unstable.\nThe Catholic doctrine and worship addressed themselves exclusively\nto our emotional nature, and even from the moral point of view their\nprinciples were uncertain and arbitrary. The field of intellect,\nwhether in art or science, as well as that of practical life, would\nhave been left almost untouched but for the personal character of the\npriests. But with the loss of their political independence, which had\nbeen always in danger from the military tendencies of the time, the\npriesthood rapidly degenerated. The system was in fact premature;\nand even before the industrial era of modern times had set in, the\nesthetic and metaphysical growth of the times had already gone too\nfar for its feeble power of control; and it then became as hostile\nto progress as it had formerly been favourable to it. Moral qualities\nwithout intellectual superiority are not enough for a true spiritual\npower; they will not enable it to modify to any appreciable extent the\nstrong preponderance of material considerations. Consequently it is the\nprimary condition of social reorganization to put an end to the state\nof utter revolt which the intellect maintains against the heart; a\nstate which has existed ever since the close of the Middle Ages and the\nsource of which may be traced as far back as the Greek Metaphysicians.\nPositivism has at last overcome the immense difficulties of this task.\nIts solution consists in the foundation of social science on the basis\nof the preliminary sciences, so that at last there is unity of method\nin our conceptions. Our active faculties have always been guided by\nthe Positive spirit: and by its extension to the sphere of Feeling, a\ncomplete synthesis, alike spontaneous and systematic in its nature,\nis constructed; and every part of our nature is brought under the\nregenerating influence of the worship of Humanity. Thus a new spiritual\npower will arise, complete and homogeneous in structure, coherent and\nat the same time progressive; and better calculated than Catholicism\nto engage the support of women which is so necessary to its efficient\naction on society.\n\n [Temporal power will always\n be necessary, but its action\n will be modified by the\n spiritual]\n\nWere it not for the material necessities of human life, nothing further\nwould be required for its guidance than a spiritual power such as is\nhere described. We should have in that case no need for any laborious\nexertion; and universal benevolence would be looked upon as the\nsovereign good, and would become the direct object of all our efforts.\nAll that would be necessary would be to call our reasoning powers, and\nstill more, our imagination into play, in order to keep this object\nconstantly in view. Purely fictitious as such an hypothesis may be,\nit is yet an ideal limit, to which our actual life should be more and\nmore nearly approximated. As an Utopia, it is a fit subject for the\npoet: and in his hands it will supply the new religion with resources\nfar superior to any that Christianity derived from vague and unreal\npictures of future bliss. In it we may carry out a more perfect social\nclassification, in which men may be ranked by moral and intellectual\nmerit, irrespectively of wealth or position. For the only standard by\nwhich in such a state men could be tried would be their capacity to\nlove and to please Humanity.\n\nSuch a standard will of course never be practically accepted, and\nindeed the classification in question would be impossible to effect:\nyet it should always be present to our minds; and should be contrasted\ndispassionately with the actual arrangements of social rank, with\nwhich power, even where accidentally acquired, has more to do than\nworth. The priests of Humanity with the assistance of women will avail\nthemselves largely of this contrast in modifying the existing order.\nPositivist education will fully explain its moral validity, and in\nour religious services appeal will frequently be made to it. Although\nan ideal abstraction, yet being based on reality, except so far as\nthe necessities of daily life are concerned, it will be far more\nefficacious than the vague and uncertain classification founded on the\ntheological doctrine of a future state. When society learns to admit no\nother Providence than its own, it will go so far in adopting this ideal\nclassification as to produce a strong effect on the classes who are the\nbest aware of its impracticability. But those who press this contrast\nmust be careful always to respect the natural laws which regulate\nthe distribution of wealth and rank. They have a definite social\nfunction, and that function is not to be destroyed, but to be improved\nand regulated. In order, therefore, to reconcile these conditions, we\nmust limit our ideal classification to individuals, leaving the actual\nsubordination of office and position unaffected. Well-marked personal\nsuperiority is not very common; and society would be wasting its powers\nin useless and interminable controversy if it undertook to give each\nfunction to its best organ, thus dispossessing the former functionary\nwithout taking into account the conditions of practical experience.\nEven in the spiritual hierarchy, where it is easier to judge of\nmerit, such a course would be utterly subversive of discipline. But\nthere would be no political danger, and morally there would be great\nadvantage, in pointing out all remarkable cases which illustrate the\ndifference between the order of rank and the order of merit. Respect\nmay be shown to be noblest without compromising the authority of the\nstrongest. St Bernard was esteemed more highly than any of the Popes of\nhis time; yet he remained in the humble position of an abbot, and never\nfailed to show the most perfect deference for the higher functionaries\nof the Church. A still more striking example was furnished by St Paul\nin recognizing the official superiority of St Peter, of whose moral\nand mental inferiority to himself he must have been well aware. All\norganized corporations, civil or military, can show instances on a less\nimportant scale where the abstract order of merit has been adopted\nconsistently with the concrete order of rank. Where this is the case\nthe two may be contrasted without any subversive consequences. The\ncontrast will be morally beneficial to all classes, at the same time\nthat it proves the imperfection to which so complicated an organism as\nhuman society must be ever liable.\n\nThus the religion of Humanity creates an intellectual and moral power,\nwhich, could human life be freed from the pressure of material wants,\nwould suffice for its guidance. Imperfect as our nature assuredly\nis, yet social sympathy has an intrinsic charm which would make it\nparamount, but for the imperious necessities by which the instincts of\nself-preservation are stimulated. So urgent are they, that the greater\npart of life is necessarily occupied with actions of a self-regarding\nkind, before which Reason, Imagination, and even Feeling, have to\ngive way. Consequently this moral power, which seems so well adapted\nfor the direction of society, must only attempt to act as a modifying\ninfluence. Its sympathetic element, in other words, women, accept this\nnecessity without difficulty; for true affection always takes the\nright course of action, as soon as it is clearly indicated. But the\nintellect is far more unwilling to take a subordinate position. Its\nrash ambition is far more unsettling to the world than the ambition of\nrank and wealth, against which it so often inveighs. It is the hardest\nof social problems to regulate the exercise of the intellectual powers,\nwhile securing them their due measure of influence; the object being\nthat theoretical power should be able really to modify, and yet should\nnever be permitted to govern. For the nations of antiquity this problem\nwas insoluble; with them the intellect was always either a tyrant or\na slave. The solution was attempted in the Middle Ages; but without\nsuccess, owing to the military and theological character of the times.\nPositivism relies for solving it on the reality which is one of its\nprincipal features, and on the fact that Society has now entered on its\nindustrial phase. Based on accurate inquiry into the past and future\ndestinies of man, its aim is so to regenerate our political action,\nas to transform it ultimately into a practical worship of Humanity;\nMorality being the worship rendered by the affections, Science and\nPoetry that rendered by the intellect. Such is the principal mission\nof the Occidental priesthood, a mission in which women and the working\nclasses will actively co-operate.\n\n [Substitution of duties for\n rights]\n\nThe most important object of this regenerated polity will be the\nsubstitution of Duties for Rights; thus subordinating personal\nto social considerations. The word _Right_ should be excluded\nfrom political language, as the word _Cause_ from the language of\nphilosophy. Both are theological and metaphysical conceptions; and\nthe former is as immoral and subversive as the latter is unmeaning\nand sophistical. Both are alike incompatible with the final state;\nand their value during the revolutionary period of modern history\nhas simply consisted in their solvent action upon previous systems.\nRights, in the strict sense of the word, are possible only so long\nas power is considered as emanating from a superhuman will. Rights,\nunder all theological systems, were divine; but in their opposition to\ntheocracy, the metaphysicians of the last five centuries introduced\nwhat they called the rights of Man; a conception, the value of which\nconsisted simply in its destructive effects. Whenever it has been taken\nas the basis of a constructive policy, its anti-social character, and\nits tendency to strengthen individualism have always been apparent.\nIn the Positive state, where no supernatural claims are admissible,\nthe idea of _Right_ will entirely disappear. Every one has duties,\nduties towards all; but rights in the ordinary sense can be claimed by\nnone. Whatever security the individual may require is found in the\ngeneral acknowledgment of reciprocal obligations; and this gives a\nmoral equivalent for rights as hitherto claimed, without the serious\npolitical dangers which they involved. In other words, no one has\nin any case any Right but that of doing his Duty. The adoption of\nthis principle is the one way of realizing the grand ideal of the\nMiddle Ages, the subordination of Politics to Morals. In those times,\nhowever, the vast bearings of the question were but very imperfectly\napprehended; its solution is incompatible with every form of theology,\nand is only to be found in Positivism.\n\nThe solution consists in regarding our political and social action as\nthe service of Humanity. Its object should be to assist by conscious\neffort all functions, whether relating to Order or to Progress, which\nHumanity has hitherto performed spontaneously. This is the ultimate\nobject of Positive religion. Without it all other aspects of that\nreligion would be inadequate, and would soon cease to have any value.\nTrue affection does not stop short at desire for good; it strains every\neffort to attain it. The elevation of soul arising from the act of\ncontemplating and adoring Humanity is not the sole object of religious\nworship. Above and beyond this there is the motive of becoming better\nable to serve Humanity; unceasing action on our part being necessary\nfor her preservation and development. This indeed is the most\ndistinctive feature of Positive religion. The Supreme Being of former\ntimes had really little need of human services. The consequence was,\nthat with all theological believers, and with monotheists especially,\ndevotion always tended to degenerate into quietism. The danger could\nonly be obviated when the priesthood had sufficient wisdom to take\nadvantage of the vagueness of these theories, and to draw from them\nmotives for practical exertion. Nothing could be done in this direction\nunless the priesthood retained their social independence. As soon as\nthis was taken from them by the usurpation of the temporal power, the\nmore sincere amongst Catholics lapsed into the quietistic spirit which\nfor a long time had been kept in check. In Positivism, on the contrary,\nthe doctrine itself, irrespective of the character of its teachers, is\na direct and continuous incentive to exertion of every kind. The reason\nfor this is to be found in the relative and dependent nature of our\nSupreme Being, of whom her own worshippers form a part.\n\n [Consensus of the social\n organism]\n\nIn this, which is the essential service of Humanity, and which infuses\na religious spirit into every act of life, the feature most prominent\nis co-operation of effort; co-operation on so vast a scale that less\ncomplicated organisms have nothing to compare with it. The consensus\nof the social organism extends to Time as well as Space. Hence the\ntwo distinct aspects of social sympathy: the feeling of Solidarity,\nor union with the Present; and of Continuity, or union with the Past.\nCareful investigation of any social phenomenon, whether relating to\nOrder or to Progress, always proves convergence, direct or indirect,\nof all contemporaries and of all former generations, within certain\ngeographical and chronological limits; and those limits recede as the\ndevelopment of Humanity advances. In our thoughts and feelings such\nconvergence is unquestionable; and it should be still more evident\nin our actions, the efficacy of which depends on co-operations to\na still greater degree. Here we feel how false as well as immoral\nis the notion of _Right_, a word which, as commonly used, implies\nabsolute individuality. The only principle on which Politics can be\nsubordinated to Morals is, that individuals should be regarded, not as\nso many distinct beings, but as organs of one Supreme Being. Indeed,\nin all settled states of society, the individual has always been\nconsidered as a public functionary, filling more or less efficiently a\ndefinite post, whether formally appointed to it or not. So fundamental\na principle has ever been recognized instinctively up to the period\nof revolutionary transition, which is now at length coming to an end;\na period in which the obstructive and corrupt character of organized\nsociety roused a spirit of anarchy which, though at first favourable to\nprogress, has now become an obstacle to it. Positivism, however, will\nplace this principle beyond reach of attack, by giving a systematic\ndemonstration of it, based on the sum of our scientific knowledge.\n\n [Continuity of the past with\n the present]\n\nAnd this demonstration will be the intellectual basis on which the\nmoral authority of the new priesthood will rest. What they have to do\nis to show the dependence of each important question, as it arises,\nupon social co-operation, and by this means to indicate the right\npath of duty. For this purpose all their scientific knowledge and\nesthetic power will be needed, otherwise social feeling could never be\ndeveloped sufficiently to produce any strong effect upon conduct. It\nwould never, that is, go further than the feelings of mere solidarity\nwith the Present, which is only its incipient and rudimentary form.\nWe see this unfortunate narrowness of view too often in the best\nsocialists, who, leaving the present without roots in the past, would\ncarry us headlong towards a future of which they have no definite\nconception. In all social phenomena, and especially in those of modern\ntimes, the participation of our predecessors is greater than that of\nour contemporaries. This truth is especially apparent in industrial\nundertakings, for which the combination of efforts required is so\nvast. It is our filiation with the Past, even more than our connexion\nwith the Present, which teaches us that the only real life is the\ncollective life of the race; that individual life has no existence\nexcept as an abstraction. Continuity is the feature which distinguishes\nour race from all others. Many of the lower races are able to form\na union among their living members; but it was reserved for Man to\nconceive and realize co-operation of successive generations, the source\nto which the gradual growth of civilization is to be traced. Social\nsympathy is a barren and imperfect feeling, and indeed it is a cause\nof disturbance, so long as it extends no further than the present\ntime. It is a disregard for historical Continuity which induces that\nmistaken antipathy to all forms of inheritance which is now so common.\nScientific study of history would soon convince those of our socialist\nwriters who are sincere of their radical error in this respect. If\nthey were more familiar with the collective inheritance of society,\nthe value of which no one can seriously dispute, they would feel less\nobjection to inheritance in its application to individuals or families.\nPractical experience, moreover, bringing them into contact with the\nfacts of the case, will gradually show them that without the sense of\ncontinuity with the Past they cannot really understand their solidarity\nwith the Present. For, in the first place, each individual in the\ncourse of his growth passes spontaneously through phases corresponding\nin a great measure to those of our historical development; and\ntherefore, without some knowledge of the history of society, he cannot\nunderstand the history of his own life. Again, each of these successive\nphases may be found amongst the less advanced nations who do not as\nyet share in the general progress of Humanity; so that we cannot\nproperly sympathize with these nations, if we ignore the successive\nstages of development in Western Europe. The nobler socialists and\ncommunists, those especially who belong to the working classes, will\nsoon be alive to the error and danger of these inconsistencies, and\nwill supply this deficiency in their education, which at present\nvitiates their efforts. With women, the purest and most spontaneous\nelement of the moderating power, the priests of Humanity will find it\nless difficult to introduce the broad principles of historical science.\nThey are more inclined than any other class to recognize our continuity\nwith the Past, being themselves its original source.\n\n [Necessity of a spiritual\n power to study and teach\n these truths, and thus to\n govern men by persuasion,\n instead of by compulsion]\n\nWithout a scientific basis, therefore, a basis which must itself\nrest on the whole sum of Positive speculation, it is impossible for\nour social sympathies to develop themselves fully, so as to extend\nnot to the Present only, but also and still more strongly to the\nPast. And this is the first motive, a motive founded alike on moral\nand on intellectual considerations, for the separation of temporal\nfrom spiritual power in the final organization of society. The more\nvigorously we concentrate our efforts upon social progress, the more\nclearly shall we feel the impossibility of modifying social phenomena\nwithout knowledge of the laws that regulate them. This involves the\nexistence of an intellectual class specially devoted to the study of\nsocial phenomena. Such a class will be invested with the consultative\nauthority for which their knowledge qualifies them, and also with the\nfunction of teaching necessary for the diffusion of their principles.\nIn the minor arts of life it is generally recognized that principles\nshould be investigated and taught by thinkers who are not concerned\nin applying them. In the art of Social Life, so far more difficult\nand important than any other, the separation of theory from practice\nis of far greater moment. The wisdom of such a course is obvious, and\nall opposition to it will be overcome, as soon as it becomes generally\nrecognized that social phenomena are subject to invariable laws; laws\nof so complicated a character and so dependent upon other sciences as\nto make it doubly necessary that minds of the highest order should be\nspecially devoted to their interpretation.\n\nBut there is another aspect of the question of not less importance\nin sound polity. Separation of temporal from spiritual power is as\nnecessary for free individual activity as for social co-operation.\nHumanity is characterized by the independence as well as by the\nconvergence of the individuals or families of which she is composed.\nThe latter condition, convergence, is that which secures Order; but the\nformer is no less essential to Progress. Both are alike urgent: yet in\nancient times they were incompatible, for the reason that spiritual\nand temporal power were always in the same hands; in the hands of\nthe priests in some cases, at other times in those of the military\nchief. As long as the State held together, the independence of the\nindividual was habitually sacrificed to the convergence of the body\npolitic. This explains why the conception of Progress never arose, even\nin the minds of the most visionary schemers. The two conditions were\nirreconcilable until the Middle Ages, when a remarkable attempt was\nmade to separate the modifying power from the governing power, and so\nto make Politics subordinate to Morals. Co-operation of efforts was\nnow placed on a different footing. It was the result of free assent\nrendered by the heart and understanding to a religious system which\nlaid down general rules of conduct, in which nothing was arbitrary, and\nwhich were applied to governors as strictly as to their subjects. The\nconsequence was that Catholicism, notwithstanding its extreme defects\nintellectually and socially, produced moral and political results of\nvery great value. Chivalry arose, a type of life, in which the most\nvigorous independence was combined with the most intense devotion to a\ncommon cause. Every class in Western Society was elevated by this union\nof personal dignity with universal brotherhood. So well is human nature\nadapted for this combination, that it arose under the first religious\nsystem of which the principles were not incompatible with it. With the\nnecessary decay of that religion, it became seriously impaired, but\nyet was preserved instinctively, especially in countries untouched by\nProtestantism. By it the mediaeval system prepared the way for the\nconception of Humanity; since it put an end to the fatal opposition\nin which the two characteristic attributes of Humanity, independence\nand co-operation, had hitherto existed. Catholicism brought unity into\ntheological religion, and by doing so, led to its decline; but it paved\nthe way long beforehand for the more complete and more real principle\nof unity on which human society will be finally organized.\n\nBut meritorious and useful as this premature attempt was, it was no\nreal solution of the problem. The spirit and temper of the period\nwere not ripe for any definite solution. Theological belief and\nmilitary life were alike inconsistent with any permanent separation\nof theoretical and practical powers. It was maintained only for a\nfew centuries precariously and inadequately, by a sort of natural\nbalance or rather oscillation between imperialism and theocracy.\nBut the positive spirit and the industrial character of modern times\ntend naturally to this division of power; and when it is consciously\nrecognized as a principle, the difficulty of reconciling co-operation\nwith independence will exist no longer. For in the first place, the\nrules to which human conduct will be subjected, will rest, as in\nCatholic times, but to a still higher degree, upon persuasion and\nconviction, instead of compulsion. Again, the fact of the new faith\nbeing always susceptible of demonstration, renders the spiritual\nsystem based on it more elevating as well as more durable. The rules\nof Catholic morality were only saved from being arbitrary by the\nintroduction of a supernatural Will as a substitute for mere human\nauthority. The plan had undoubtedly many advantages; but liberty in the\ntrue sense was not secured by it, since the rules remained as before\nwithout explanation; it was only their source that was changed. Still\nless successful was the subsequent attempt of metaphysicians to prove\nthat submission to government was the foundation of virtue. It was\nonly a return to the old system of arbitrary wills, stripped of the\ntheocratic sanction to which all its claims to respect and its freedom\nfrom caprice had been due. The only way to reconcile independence with\nsocial union, and thereby to reach true liberty, lies in obedience to\nthe objective laws of the world and of human nature; clearing these\nas far as possible of all that is subjective, and thus rendering them\namenable to scientific demonstration. Of such immense consequence to\nsociety will it be to extend the scientific method to the complex and\nimportant phenomena of human nature. Man will no longer be the slave of\nman; he yields only to external Law; and to this those who demonstrate\nit to him are as submissive as himself. In such obedience there can be\nno degradation even where the laws are inflexible. But, as Positivism\nshows us, in most cases they are modifiable, and this especially in the\ncase of our mental and moral constitution. Consequently our obedience\nis here no longer passive obedience: it implies the devotion of every\nfaculty of our nature to the improvement of a world of which we are\nin a true sense masters. The natural laws to which we owe submission\nfurnish the basis for our intervention; they direct our efforts and\ngive stability to our purpose. The more perfectly they are known, the\nmore free will our conduct become from arbitrary command or servile\nobedience. True, our knowledge of these laws will very seldom attain\nsuch precision as to enable us to do altogether without compulsory\nauthority. When the intellect is inadequate, the heart must take its\nplace. There are certain rules of life for which it is difficult to\nassign the exact ground, and where affection must assist reason in\nsupplying motives for obedience. Wholly to dispense with arbitrary\nauthority is impossible; nor will it degrade us to submit to it,\nprovided that it be always regarded as secondary to the uniform\nsupremacy of external Laws, and that every step in the development\nof our mental and moral powers shall restrict its employment. Both\nconditions are evidently satisfied in the Positive system of life. The\ntendency of modern industry and science is to make us less dependent\non individual caprice, as well as more assimilable to the universal\nOrganism. Positivism therefore secures the liberty and dignity of\nman by its demonstration that social phenomena, like all others, are\nsubject to natural laws, which, within certain limits, are modifiable\nby wise action on the part of society. Totally contrary, on the other\nhand, is the spirit of metaphysical schemes of polity, in which\nsociety is supposed to have no spontaneous impulses, and is handed\nover to the will of the legislator. In these degrading and oppressive\nschemes, union is purchased, as in ancient times, at the cost of\nindependence.\n\nIn these two ways, then, Positive religion influences the practical\nlife of Humanity, in accordance with the natural laws that regulate her\nexistence. First, the sense of Solidarity with the Present is perfected\nby adding to it the sense of Continuity with the Past; secondly, the\nco-operation of her individual agents is rendered compatible with\ntheir independence. Not till this is done can Politics become really\nsubordinate to Morals, and the feeling of Duty be substituted for that\nof Right. Our active powers will be modified by the combined influence\nof feeling and reason, as expressed in indisputable rules which it will\nbe for the spiritual power to make known to us. Temporal government,\nwhoever its administrators may be, will always be modified by morality.\nWhereas in all metaphysical systems of polity nothing is provided for\nbut the modes of access to government and the limits of its various\ndepartments; no principles are given to direct its application or to\nenable us to form a right judgment of it.\n\n [Nutritive functions of\n Humanity, performed by\n Capitalists, as the temporal\n power]\n\nFrom this general view of the practical service of Humanity, we pass\nnow to the two leading divisions of the subject; with the view of\ncompleting our conception of the fundamental principle of Positive\nPolity, the separation of temporal from spiritual power.\n\nThe action of Humanity relates either to her external circumstances,\nor to the facts of her own nature. Each of these two great functions\ninvolves both Order and Progress; but the first relates more specially\nto the preservation of her existence, the second to her progressive\ndevelopment. Humanity, like every other organism, has to act\nunceasingly on the surrounding world in order to maintain and extend\nher material existence. Thus the chief object of her practical life is\nto satisfy the wants of our physical nature, wants which necessitate\ncontinual reproduction of materials in sufficient quantities. This\nproduction soon comes to depend more on the co-operation of successive\ngenerations than on that of contemporaries. Even in these lower but\nindispensable functions, we work principally for our successors, and\nthe results that we enjoy are in great part due to those that have\ngone before us. Each generation produces more material wealth than is\nrequired for its own wants; and the use of the surplus is to facilitate\nthe labour and prepare the maintenance of the generation following. The\nagents in this transmission of wealth naturally take the lead in the\nindustrial movement; since the possession of provisions and instruments\nof production gives an advantage which can only be lost by unusual\nincapacity. And this will seldom happen, because capital naturally\ntends to accumulate with those who make a cautious and skilful use of\nit.\n\nCapitalists then will be the temporal chiefs of modern society. Their\noffice is consecrated in Positive religion as that of the nutritive\norgans of Humanity; organs which collect and prepare the materials\nnecessary for life, and which also distribute them, subject always to\nthe influence of a modifying central organ. The direct and palpable\nimportance of their functions is a stimulus to pride; and in every\nrespect they are strongly influenced by personal instincts, which are\nnecessary to sustain the vigour of their energies. Consequently, if\nleft to themselves, they are apt to abuse their power, and to govern\nby the ignoble method of compulsion, disregarding all appeals to reason\nand to morality. Hence the need of a combination of moral forces to\nexercise a constant check upon the hardness with which they are so apt\nto use their authority. And this leads us to the second of the two\ngreat functions of Humanity.\n\n [These are modified by\n the cerebral functions,\n performed by the spiritual\n power]\n\nThis function is analogous to that of Innervation in individuals.\nIts object is the advancement of Humanity, whether in physical or\nstill more in intellectual and moral aspects. It might seem at first\nsight restricted, as in lower organisms, to the secondary office of\nassisting the nutritive function. Soon, however, it develops qualities\npeculiar to itself, qualities on which our highest happiness depends.\nAnd thus we might imagine that life was to be entirely given up to the\nfree play of reason, imagination, and feeling, were we not constantly\nforced back by the necessities of our physical nature to less\ndelightful occupations. Therefore this intellectual and moral function,\nnotwithstanding its eminence, can never be supreme in our nature; yet\nindependently of its intrinsic charm, it forms our principal means,\nwhether used consciously or otherwise, in controlling the somewhat\nblind action of the nutritive organs. It is in women, whose function is\nanalogous to that of the affective organs in the individual brain, that\nwe find this modifying influence in its purest and most spontaneous\nform. But the full value of their influence is not realized until they\nact in combination with the philosophic class; which, though its direct\nenergy is small, is as indispensable to the collective Organism as the\nspeculative functions of the brain are to the individual. Besides these\ntwo essential elements of moral power, we find, when Humanity reaches\nher maturity, a third element which completes the constitution of\nthis power and furnishes a basis for its political action. This third\nelement is the working class, whose influence may be regarded as the\nactive function in the innervation of the social Organism.\n\nIt is indeed to the working class that we look for the only possible\nsolution of the great human problem, the victory of Social feeling over\nSelf-love. Their want of leisure, and their poverty, excludes them from\npolitical power; and yet wealth, which is the basis of that power,\ncannot be produced without them. They are allied to the spiritual\npower by the similarity of their tastes and of their circumstances.\nMoreover, they look to it for systematic education, of the importance\nof which not merely to their happiness, but to their dignity and moral\nculture, they are deeply conscious. The nature of their occupations,\nthough absorbing so large a portion of their time, yet leaves the mind\nfor the most part free. Finding little in the specialities of their\nwork to interest them, they are the more inclined to rise to general\nprinciples, provided always that such principles combine utility with\nreality. Being less occupied than other classes with considerations\nof rank and wealth, they are the more disposed to give free play to\ngenerous feelings, the value and the charm of which is more strongly\nimpressed on them by their experience of life. As their strength lies\nin numbers, they have a greater tendency to union than capitalists,\nwho, having in their own hands a power which they are apt to suppose\nresistless, have no such motive for association. They will give their\nenergetic support to the priesthood in its efforts to control the\nabuse of the power of wealth, and in every respect they are prepared\nto accept and enforce its moral influence. Being at once special\nand general, practical and speculative, and at the same time always\nanimated by strong sympathies, they form an intermediate link between\nthe practical and theoretical powers; connected with the one by the\nneed of education and counsel, and with the other by the necessities\nof labour and subsistence. The people represent the activity of the\nSupreme Being, as women represent its sympathy, and philosophers its\nintellect.\n\nBut in the organized action of these three organs of innervation upon\nthe organs of social nutrition, it must be borne in mind that the\nlatter are not to be impeded in their functions. The control exercised\nis to be of a kind that will ennoble them by setting their importance\nin its true light. True, we are not to encourage the foolish and\nimmoral pride of modern capitalists, who look upon themselves as the\ncreators and sole arbiters of their material power, the foundations of\nwhich are in reality due to the combined action of their predecessors\nand contemporaries. They ought to be regarded simply as public\nfunctionaries, responsible for the administration of capital and the\ndirection of industrial enterprise. But at the same time we must be\ncareful not to underrate the immense value of their function, or\nin any way obstruct its performance. All this follows at once from\nthe policy of Separation of Powers. The responsibility under which\nit is here proposed to place capitalists is purely moral, whereas\nmetaphysicians of the revolutionary school have always been in favour\nof political coercion. In cases where the rich neglect their duty, the\nPositive priesthood will resort in the first instance to every method\nof conviction and persuasion that can be suggested by the education\nwhich the rich have received in common with other classes. Should\nthis course fail, there remains the resource of pronouncing formal\ncondemnation of their conduct; and supposing this to be ratified by the\nworking men of every city, and the women of every family, its effect\nwould be difficult to withstand. In very heinous cases it might be\nnecessary to proceed to the extreme length of social excommunication,\nthe efficacy of which, in cases where it deserved and received general\nassent, would be even greater than in the Middle Ages; the organization\nof the spiritual power in those times being very imperfect. But even\nin this case the means used for repression are of a purely moral kind.\nThe increasingly rare cases that call for political measures belong\nexclusively to the province of the temporal power.\n\nHereditary transmission of wealth has been strongly condemned\nby metaphysical writers. But it is after all a natural mode of\ntransmission, and the moral discipline above described will be a\nsufficient check upon its worst abuses. When the sense of Duty is\nsubstituted for the sense of Right, it matters little who may be the\npossessor of any given power, provided it be well used. Inheritance, as\nPositivism shows, has great social advantages, especially when applied\nto functions which require no extraordinary capacity, and which are\nbest learnt in the training of domestic life. Taking the moral point of\nview, we find that men who have been always accustomed to wealth are\nmore disposed to be generous than those who have amassed it gradually,\nhowever honourable the means used. Inheritance was originally the\nmode in which all functions were transmitted; and in the case of\nwealth there is no reason why it should not always continue, since\nthe mere preservation of wealth, without reference to its employment,\nrequires but little special ability. There is no guarantee that, if\nother guardians of capital were appointed, the public would be better\nserved. Modern industry has long ago proved the administrative\nsuperiority of private enterprise in commercial transactions; and all\nsocial functions that admit of it will gradually pass into private\nmanagement, always excepting the great theoretic functions in which\ncombined action will ever be necessary. Declaim as the envious will\nagainst hereditary wealth, its possessors, when they have a good\ndisposition moulded by a wise education and a healthy state of public\nopinion, will in many cases rank amongst the most useful organs of\nHumanity. It is not the class who constitute the moral force of\nsociety, that will give vent to these idle complaints, or at least they\nwill be confined to those individuals among them who fail to understand\nthe dignity and value of their common mission of elevating man\u2019s\naffections, intellect, and energies.\n\n [Women and priests to have\n their material subsistence\n guaranteed]\n\nThe only cases in which the spiritual power has to interfere specially\nfor the protection of material interests fall under two principles,\nwhich are very plainly indicated by the natural order of society. The\nfirst principle is, that Man should support Woman; the second, that\nthe Active class should support the Speculative class. The necessity\nof both these conditions is evident; without them the effective and\nspeculative function of Humanity cannot be adequately performed.\nPrivate and public welfare are so deeply involved in the influence\nexercised by Feeling over the intellectual and active powers, that we\nshall do well to secure that influence, even at the cost of removing\none half of the race from industrial occupations. Even in the lowest\ntribes of savages we find the stronger sex recognizing some obligations\ntowards the weaker; and it is this which distinguishes human love,\neven in its coarser forms, from animal appetite. With every step in\nthe progress of Humanity we find the obligation more distinctly\nacknowledged, and more fully satisfied. In Positive religion it becomes\na fundamental duty, for which each individual, or even society, when it\nmay be necessary, will be held responsible. As to the second principle,\nit is one which has been already admitted by former systems; and,\nin spite of the anarchy in which we live, it has never been wholly\ndiscarded, at least in countries which have been unaffected by the\nindividualist tendencies of Protestantism. Positivism, however, while\nadopting the principle as indispensable to the theoretic functions of\nHumanity, will employ it far more sparingly than Catholicism, the decay\nof which was very much hastened by its excessive wealth. If temporal\nand spiritual power are really to be separated, philosophers should\nhave as little to do with wealth as with government. Resembling women\nin their exclusion from political power, their position as to wealth\nshould be like that of the working classes, proper regard being had to\nthe requirements of their office. By following this course, they may be\nconfident that the purity of their opinions and advice will never be\ncalled in question.\n\nThese two conditions then, Capitalists, as the normal administrators of\nthe common fund of wealth, will be expected to satisfy. They must, that\nis, so regulate the distribution of wages, that women shall be released\nfrom work; and they must see that proper remuneration is given for\nintellectual labour. To exact the performance of these conditions seems\nno easy task; yet until they are satisfied, the equilibrium of our\nsocial economy will remain unstable. The institution of property can be\nmaintained no longer upon the untenable ground of personal right. Its\npresent possessors may probably decline to accept these principles.\nIn that case their functions will pass in one way or another to\nnew organs, until Humanity finds servants who will not shirk their\nfundamental duties, but who will recognize them as the first condition\nof their tenure of power. That power, subject to these limitations,\nwill then be regarded with the highest respect, for all will feel\nthat the existence of Humanity depends on it. Alike on intellectual\nand on moral grounds, society will repudiate the envious passions\nand subversive views which are aroused at present by the unfounded\nclaims of property, and by its repudiation, since the Middle Ages, of\nevery real moral obligation. Rich men will feel that principles like\nthese, leaving as they do so large a margin of voluntary action to\nthe individual, are the only method of escaping from the political\noppression with which they are now threatened. The free concentration\nof capital will then be readily accepted as necessary to its social\nusefulness; for great duties imply great powers.\n\n [Normal relation of priests,\n people, and capitalists]\n\nThis, then, is the way in which the priests of Humanity may hope to\nregenerate the material power of wealth, and bring the nutritive\nfunctions of society into harmony with the other parts of the body\npolitic. The contests for which as yet there are but too many motives\nwill then cease; the People without loss of dignity will give free\nplay to their natural instincts of respect, and will be as willing to\naccept the authority of their political rulers as to place confidence\nin their spiritual guides. They will feel that true happiness has no\nnecessary connexion with wealth; that it depends far more on free\nplay being given to their intellectual, moral, and social qualities;\nand that in this respect they are more favourably situated than those\nabove them. They will cease to aspire to the enjoyments of wealth and\npower, leaving them to those whose political activity requires that\nstrong stimulus. Each man\u2019s ambition will be to do his work well; and\nafter it is over, to perform his more general function of assisting the\nspiritual power, and of taking part in the formation of Public Opinion,\nby giving his best judgment upon passing events. Of the limits to be\nobserved by the spiritual power the People will be well aware; and\nthey will accept none which does not subordinate the intellect to the\nheart, and guarantee the purity of its doctrine by strict abstinence\nfrom political power. By an appeal to the principles of Positive\nPolity, they will at once check any foolish yielding on the part of\nphilosophers to political ambition, and will restore the temporal\npower to its proper place. They will be aware that though the general\nprinciples of practical life rest upon Science, it is not for Science\nto direct their application. The incapacity of theorists to apply their\ntheories practically has long been recognized in minor matters, and it\nwill now be recognized as equally applicable to political questions.\nThe province of the philosopher is education; and as the result of\neducation, counsel: the province of the capitalist is action and\nauthoritative direction. This is the only right distribution of power;\nand the people will insist on maintaining it in its integrity, seeing,\nas they will, that without it the harmonious existence of Humanity is\nimpossible.\n\n [We are not yet ripe for\n the normal state. But the\n revolution of 1848 is a step\n towards it]\n\nFrom this view of the practical side of the religion of Humanity\ntaken in connexion with its intellectual and moral side, we may\nform a general conception of the final reorganization of political\ninstitutions, by which alone the great Revolution can be brought to\na close. But the time for effecting this reconstruction has not yet\ncome. There must be a previous reconstruction of opinions and habits\nof life upon the basis laid down by Positivism; and for this at least\none generation is required. In the interval all political measures must\nretain their provisional character, although in framing them the final\nstate is always to be taken into account. As yet nothing can be said to\nhave been established, except the moral principle on which Positivism\nrests, the subordination of Politics to Morals. For this is in fact\nimplicitly involved in the proclamation of a Republic in France; a step\nwhich cannot now be recalled, and which implies that each citizen is to\ndevote all his faculties to the service of Humanity. But with regard to\nthe social organization, by which alone this principle can be carried\ninto effect, although its basis has been laid down by Positivism, it\nhas not yet received the sanction of the Public. It may be hoped,\nhowever, that the motto which I have put forward as descriptive of the\nnew political philosophy, _Order and Progress_, will soon be adopted\nspontaneously.\n\n [First revolutionary motto,\n Liberty and Equality]\n\nIn the first or negative phase of the Revolution, all that was done\nwas utterly to repudiate the old political system. No indication\nwhatever was given of the state of things which was to succeed\nit. The motto of the time, _Liberty and Equality_, is an exact\nrepresentation of this state of things, the conditions expressed in\nit being utterly contradictory, and incompatible with organization of\nany kind. For obviously, Liberty gives free scope to superiority of\nall kinds, and especially to moral and mental superiority; so that\nif a uniform level of Equality is insisted on, freedom of growth is\nchecked. Yet inconsistent as the motto was, it was admirably adapted\nto the destructive temper of the time; a time when hatred of the\nPast compensated the lack of insight into the Future. It had, too, a\nprogressive tendency, which partly neutralized its subversive spirit.\nIt inspired the first attempt to derive true principles of polity from\ngeneral views of history; the memorable though unsuccessful essay of\nmy great predecessor Condorcet[13]. Thus the first intimation of the\nfuture influence of the historical spirit was given at the very time\nwhen the anti-historical spirit had reached its climax.\n\nThe long period of reaction which succeeded the first crisis gave\nrise to no political motto of any importance. It was a period for\nwhich men of any vigour of thought and character could not but feel\nsecret repugnance. It produced, however, a universal conviction that\nthe metaphysical policy of the revolutionists was of no avail for\nconstructive purposes. And it gave rise to the historical works of the\nNeo-Catholic school, which prepared the way for Positivism by giving\nthe first fair appreciation of the Middle Ages.\n\n [Second motto, Liberty and\n Order]\n\nBut the Counter-revolution, begun by Robespierre, carried to its full\nlength by Bonaparte, and continued by the Bourbons, came to an end in\nthe memorable outbreak of 1830. A neutral period of eighteen years\nfollowed, and a new motto, _Liberty and Public Order_, was temporarily\nadopted. This motto was very expressive of the political condition\nof the time; and the more so that it arose spontaneously, without\never receiving any formal sanction. It expressed the general feeling\nof the public, who, feeling that the secret of the political future\nwas possessed by none of the existing parties, contented itself with\npointing out the two conditions essential as a preparation for it.\nIt was an improvement on the first motto, because it indicated more\nclearly that the ultimate purpose of the revolution was construction.\nIt got rid of the anti-social notion of Equality. All the moral\nadvantages of Equality without its political danger existed already in\nthe feeling of Fraternity, which, since the Middle Ages, has become\nsufficiently diffused in Western Europe to need no special formula.\nAgain, this motto introduced empirically the great conception of Order;\nunderstanding it of course in the limited sense of material order at\nhome and abroad. No deeper meaning was likely to be attached to the\nword in a time of such mental and moral anarchy.\n\n [Third motto, Order and\n Progress]\n\nBut with the adoption of the Republican principle in 1848[14], the\nutility of this provisional motto ceased. For the Revolution now\nentered upon its Positive phase; which indeed, for all philosophical\nminds, had been already inaugurated by my discovery of the laws of\nSocial Science. But the fact of its having fallen into disuse is no\nreason for going back to the old motto, Liberty and Equality, which,\nsince the crisis of 1789, has ceased to be appropriate. In the utter\nabsence of social convictions, it has obtained a sort of official\nresuscitation; but this will not prevent men of good sense and right\nfeeling from adopting spontaneously the motto _Order and Progress_, as\nthe principle of all political action for the future. In the second\nchapter I dwelt at some length upon this motto, and pointed out its\npolitical and philosophical meaning. I have now only to show its\nconnexion with the other mottoes of which we have been speaking, and\nthe probability of its adoption. Each of them, like all combinations,\nwhether in the moral or physical world, is composed of two elements;\nand the last has one of its elements in common with the second, as the\nsecond has in common with the first. Moreover, Liberty, the element\ncommon to the two first, is in reality contained in the third; since\nall Progress implies Liberty. But Order is put foremost, because the\nword is here intended to cover the whole field that properly belongs\nto it. It includes things private as well as public, theoretical as\nwell as practical, moral as well as political. Progress is put next, as\nthe end for which Order exists, and as the mode in which it should be\nmanifested. This conception, for which the crisis of 1789 prepared the\nway, will be our guiding principle throughout the constructive phase\nof the Western Revolution. The reconciliation of Order and Progress,\nwhich had hitherto been impossible, is now an accepted fact for all\nadvanced minds. For the public this is not yet the case; but since the\nclose of the Counter-revolution in 1830, all minds have been tending\nunconsciously in this direction. The tendency becomes still more\nstriking by contrast with an opposite movement, the increasing identity\nof principles between the reactionary and the anarchist schools.\n\n [Provisional policy for the\n period of transition]\n\nBut even if we suppose accomplished what is yet only in prospect,\neven if the fundamental principle of our future polity were accepted\nand publicly ratified by the adoption of this motto, yet permanent\nreconstruction of political institutions would still be premature.\nBefore this can be attempted, the spiritual interregnum must be\nterminated. For this object, in which all hearts and minds, especially\namong the working classes and among women, must unite their efforts\nwith those of the philosophic priesthood, at least one generation\nis required. During this period governmental policy should be\navowedly provisional; its one object should be to maintain what is so\nessential to our state of transition, Order, at home and abroad. Here,\ntoo, Positivism suffices for the task; by explaining on historical\nprinciples the stage that we have left, and that at which we shall\nultimately arrive, it enables us to understand the character of the\nintermediate stage.\n\n [Popular dictatorship with\n freedom of speech]\n\nThe solution of the problem consists in a new revolutionary government,\nadapted to the Positive phase of the Revolution, as the admirable\ninstitutions of the Convention were to its negative phase. The\nprincipal features of such a government would be perfect freedom of\nspeech and discussion, and at the same time political preponderance\nof the central authority with proper guarantees for its purity. To\nsecure perfect freedom of discussion, various measures would be taken.\nAll penalties and fines which at present hamper its action would be\nabolished, the only check left being the obligation of signature.\nAgain, all difficulties in the way of criticizing the private character\nof public men, due to the disgraceful legislation of the psychologists,\nwould be removed. Lastly, all official grants to theological and\nmetaphysical institutions would be discontinued; for while these\nremain, freedom of instruction in the true sense cannot be said to\nexist. With such substantial guarantees there will be little fear of\nreactionary tendencies on the part of the executive; and consequently\nno danger in allowing it to take that ascendency over the electoral\nbody which, in the present state of mental and moral anarchy, is\nabsolutely necessary for the maintenance of material order. On this\nplan the French assembly would be reduced to about two hundred members;\nand its duty only would be to vote the budget proposed by the finance\ncommittee of government, and to audit the accounts of the past year.\nAll executive or legislative measures would come within the province\nof the central power; the only condition being that they should first\nbe submitted to free discussion, whether by journals, public meetings,\nor individual thinkers, though such discussion should not bind the\ngovernment legally. The progressive character of the government thus\nguaranteed, we have next to see that the men who compose it shall be\nsuch as are likely to carry out the provisional and purely practical\npurpose with which it is instituted. On Positive principles, it is to\nthe working classes that we should look for the only statesmen worthy\nof succeeding to the statesmen of the Convention. Three of such men\nwould be required for the central government. They would combine the\nfunctions of a ministry with those of monarchy, one of them taking the\ndirection of Foreign affairs, another of Home affairs, the third of\nFinance. They would convoke and dissolve the electoral power on their\nown responsibility. Of this body the majority would in a short time,\nwithout any law to that effect, consist of the larger capitalists; for\nthe office would be gratuitous, and the duties would be of a kind for\nwhich their ordinary avocations fitted them. Changes would occasionally\nbe necessary in the central government; but since it would consist of\nthree persons, its continuity might be maintained, and the traditions\nof the previous generation, as well as the tendencies of the future,\nand the position actually existing, might all be represented.\n\nSuch a government, though of course retaining some revolutionary\nfeatures, would come as near to the normal state as is at present\npracticable. For its province would be entirely limited to material\nquestions, and the only anomaly of importance would be the fact of\nchoosing rulers from the working classes. Normally, this class is\nexcluded from political administration, which falls ultimately into the\nhands of capitalists. But the anomaly is so obviously dependent simply\non the present condition of affairs, and will be so restricted in its\napplication, that the working classes are not likely to be seriously\ndemoralized by it. The primary object being to infuse morality into\npractical life, it is clear that working men, whose minds and hearts\nare peculiarly accessible to moral influence, are for the present best\nqualified for political power. No check meantime is placed on the\naction of the capitalists; and this provisional policy prepares the\nway for their ultimate accession to power, by convincing them of the\nurgent need of private and public regeneration, without which they\ncan never be worthy of it. By this course, too, it becomes easier to\nbring the consultative influence of a spiritual power to bear upon\nmodern government. At first such influence can only be exercised\nspontaneously; but it will become more and more systematic with every\nnew step in the great philosophical renovation on which the final\nreorganization of society is based.\n\nThe propriety of the provisional policy here recommended is further\nillustrated by the wide scope of its application. Although suggested\nby the difficulties peculiar to the position of France, it is equally\nadapted to other nations who are sufficiently advanced to take part\nin the great revolutionary crisis. Thus the second phase of the\nRevolution is at once distinguished from the first, by having an\nOccidental, as opposed to a purely National, character. And the fact\nof the executive government being composed of working men, points\nin the same direction; since of all classes working men are the most\nfree from local prejudices, and have the strongest tendencies, both\nintellectually and morally, to universal union. Even should this form\nof government be limited for some years to France, it would be enough\nto remodel the old system of diplomacy throughout the West.\n\nSuch are the advantages which the second revolutionary government\nwill derive from the possession of systematic principles; whereas the\ngovernment of the Convention was left to its empirical instincts, and\nhad nothing but its progressive instincts to guide it.\n\nA special report was published in 1848 by the Positivist Society[15],\nin which the subject of provisional government will be found discussed\nin greater detail.\n\n [Positive Committee for\n Western Europe]\n\nQuiet at home and peace abroad being secured, we shall be able,\nnotwithstanding the continuance of mental and moral anarchy, to\nproceed actively with the vast work of social regeneration, with the\ncertainty of full liberty of thought and expression. For this purpose\nit will be desirable to institute the philosophical and political\nassociation to which I alluded in the last volume of my _Positive\nPhilosophy_ (published in 1842), under the title of _Positive\nOccidental Committee_[16]. Its sittings would usually be held in\nParis, and it would consist, in the first place, of eight Frenchmen,\nseven Englishmen, six Germans, five Italians, and four Spaniards. This\nwould be enough to represent fairly the principal divisions of each\npopulation. Germany, for instance, might send a Dutchman, a Prussian,\na Swede, a Dane, a Bavarian, and an Austrian. So, too, the Italian\nmembers might come respectively from Piedmont, Lombardy, Tuscany,\nthe Roman States, and the two Sicilies. Again, Catalonia, Castille,\nAndalusia, and Portugal would adequately represent the Spanish\nPeninsula.\n\nThus we should have a sort of permanent Council of the new Church.\nEach of the three elements of the moderating power should be admitted\ninto it; and it might also contain such members of the governing\nclass as were sufficiently regenerated to be of use in forwarding\nthe general movement. There should be practical men in this council\nas well as philosophers. Here, as elsewhere, it will be principally\nfrom the working classes that such practical co-operation will come;\nbut no support, if given sincerely, will be rejected, even should it\nemanate from the classes who are destined to extinction. It is also\nmost important for the purposes of this Council that the third element\nof the moderating power, women, should be included in it, so as to\nrepresent the fundamental principle of the preponderance of the heart\nover the understanding. Six ladies should be chosen in addition to\nthe thirty members above mentioned: of these, two would be French,\nand one from each of the other nations. Besides their ordinary sphere\nof influence, it will be their special duty to disseminate Positivism\namong our Southern brethren. It is an office that I had reserved for\nmy saintly colleague, who, but for her premature death, would have\nrendered eminent service in such a Council.\n\nWhile material order is maintained by national governments, the\nmembers of the Council, as pioneers of the final order of society,\nwill be carrying on the European movement, and gradually terminating\nthe spiritual interregnum which is now the sole obstacle to social\nregeneration. They will forward the development and diffusion of\nPositivism, and make practical application of its principles, in all\nways that are honourably open to them. Instruction of all kinds, oral\nor written, popular or philosophic, will fall within their province;\nbut their chief aim will be to inaugurate the worship of Humanity so\nfar as that is possible. And already a beginning is possible, so far\nat least as the system of commemoration is concerned. Politically they\nmay give a direct proof of the international character of the Positive\nsystem, by bringing forward several measures, the utility of which has\nlong been recognized, but which have been neglected for want of some\ncentral authority placed beyond the reach of national rivalry.\n\n [Occidental navy]\n\nOne of the most important of such measures would be the establishment\nof a Western naval force, with the twofold object of protecting the\nseas, and of assisting geographical and scientific discovery. It should\nbe recruited and supported by all five branches of the Occidental\nfamily, and would thus be a good substitute for the admirable\ninstitution of maritime Chivalry which fell with Catholicism. On its\nflag the Positivist motto would naturally be inscribed, and thus would\nbe for the first time publicly recognized.\n\n [International coinage]\n\nAnother measure, conceived in the same spirit, would soon follow,\none which has long been desired, but which, owing to the anarchy\nprevalent throughout the West since the decline of Catholicism,\nhas never yet been carried out. A common monetary standard will be\nestablished, with the consent of the various governments, by which\nindustrial transactions will be greatly facilitated. Three spheres made\nrespectively of gold, silver, and platinum, and each weighing fifty\ngrammes, would differ sufficiently in value for the purpose. The sphere\nshould have a small flattened base, and on the great circle parallel to\nit the Positivist motto would be inscribed. At the pole would be the\nimage of the immortal Charlemagne, the founder of the Western Republic,\nand round the image his name would be engraved, in its Latin form,\nCarolus; that name, respected as it is by all nations of Europe alike,\nwould be the common appellation of the universal monetary standard.\n\n [Occidental school]\n\nThe adoption of such measures would soon bring the Positivist Committee\ninto favour. Many others might be suggested, relating directly to\nits fundamental purpose, which need not be specially mentioned\nhere. I will only suggest the foundation, by voluntary effort, of\nan Occidental School, to serve as the nucleus of a true philosophic\nclass. The students would ultimately enter the Positivist priesthood;\nthey would in most instances come from the working class, without,\nhowever, excluding real talent from whatever quarter. By their agency\nthe septennial course of Positive teaching might be introduced in all\nplaces disposed to receive it. They would besides supply voluntary\nmissionaries, who would preach the doctrine everywhere, even outside\nthe limits of Western Europe, according to the plan hereafter to be\nexplained. The travels of Positivist workmen in the ordinary duties of\ntheir calling, would greatly facilitate this work.\n\nA more detailed view of this provisional system of instruction will be\nfound in the second edition of the _Report on the Subject of a Positive\nSchool_, published by the Positivist Society in 1849[17].\n\n [Flag for the Western\n Republic]\n\nThere is another step which might be taken, relating not merely to the\nperiod of transition, but also to the normal state. A flag suitable to\nthe Western Republic might be adopted, which, with slight alterations,\nwould also be the flag for each nation. The want of such a symbol is\nalready instinctively felt. What is wanted is a substitute for the old\nretrograde symbols, which yet shall avoid all subversive tendencies. It\nwould be a suitable inauguration of the period of transition which we\nare now entering, if the colours and mottoes appropriate to the final\nstate were adopted at its outset.\n\nTo speak first of the banner to be used in religious services. It\nshould be painted on canvas. On one side the ground would be white; on\nit would be the symbol of Humanity, personified by a woman of thirty\nyears of age, bearing her son in her arms. The other side would bear\nthe religious formula of Positivists: _Love is our Principle, Order is\nour Basis, Progress our End_, upon a ground of green, the colour of\nhope, and therefore most suitable for emblems of the future.\n\nGreen, too, would be the colour of the political flag, common to the\nwhole West. As it is intended to float freely, it does not admit of\npainting; but the carved image of Humanity might be placed at the\nbanner-pole. The principal motto of Positivism will, in this case, be\ndivided into two, both alike significant. One side of the flag will\nhave the political and scientific motto, _Order and Progress_: the\nother, the moral and esthetic motto, _Live for Others_. The first will\nbe preferred by men; the other is more especially adapted to women,\nwho are thus invited to participate in these public manifestations of\nsocial feeling.\n\nThis point settled, the question of the various national flags becomes\neasy. In these the centre might be green, and the national colours\nmight be displayed on the border. Thus, in France, where the innovation\nwill be first introduced, the border would be tricolour, with the\npresent arrangement of colours, except that more space should be given\nto the white, in honour of our old royal flag. In this way uniformity\nwould be combined with variety; and, moreover, it would be shown that\nthe new feeling of Occidentality is perfectly compatible with respect\nfor the smallest nationalities. Each would retain the old signs in\ncombination with the common symbol. The same principle would apply to\nall emblems of minor importance.\n\nThe question of these symbols, of which I have spoken during the\nlast two years in my weekly courses of lectures, illustrates the\nmost immediate of the functions to which the Positive Committee will\nbe called. I mention it here, as a type of its general action upon\nEuropean society.\n\nWithout setting any limits to the gradual increase of the Association,\nit is desirable that the central nucleus should always remain limited\nto the original number of thirty-six, with two additions, which will\nshortly be mentioned. Each member might institute a more numerous\nassociation in his own country, and this again might be the parent of\nothers. Associations thus affiliated may be developed to an unlimited\nextent; and thus we shall be able to maintain the unity and homogeneity\nof the Positive Church, without impairing its coherence and vigour. As\nsoon as Positivism has gained in every country a sufficient number of\nvoluntary adherents to constitute the preponderating section of the\ncommunity, the regeneration of society is secured.\n\nThe numbers assigned above for the different nations, only represent\nthe order in which the advanced minds in each will co-operate in the\nmovement. The order in which the great body of each nation will join\nit, will be, as far as we can judge from their antecedents, somewhat\ndifferent. The difference is, that Italy here takes the second place,\nand Spain the third, while England descends to the last. The grounds\nfor this important modification are indicated in the third edition of\nmy _Positive Calendar_. They will be discussed in detail in the fourth\nvolume of this Treatise[18].\n\n [Colonial and foreign\n Associates of the Committee,\n the action of which will\n ultimately extend to the\n whole human race]\n\nFrom Europe the movement will spread ultimately to the whole race. But\nthe first step in its progress will naturally be to the inhabitants of\nour colonies, who, though politically independent of Western Europe,\nstill retain their filiation with it. Twelve colonial members may be\nadded to the Council; four for each American Continent, two for India,\ntwo for the Dutch and Spanish possessions in the Indian Ocean.\n\nThis gives us forty-eight members. To these twelve foreign associates\nwill gradually be added, to represent the populations whose growth\nhas been retarded; and then the Council will have received its full\ncomplement. For every nation of the world is destined for the same\nultimate conditions of social regeneration as ourselves, the only\ndifference being that Western Europe, under the leadership of France,\ntakes the initiative. It is of great importance not to attempt this\nfinal extension too soon, an error which would impair the precision\nand vigour of the renovating movement. At the same time it must never\nbe forgotten that the existence of the Great Being remains incomplete\nuntil all its members are brought into harmonious co-operation.\nIn ancient times social sympathy was restricted to the idea of\nNationality; between this and the final conception of Humanity, the\nMiddle Ages introduced the intermediate conception of Christendom,\nor Occidentality; the real bearing of which is at present but little\nappreciated. It will be our first political duty to revive that\nconception, and place it on a firmer basis, by terminating the anarchy\nconsequent on the extinction of Catholic Feudalism. While occupied in\nthis task, we shall become impressed with the conviction that the union\nof Western Europe is but a preliminary step to the union of Humanity;\nan instinctive presentiment of which has existed from the infancy\nof our race, but which as long as theological belief and military\nlife were predominant, could never be carried out even in thought.\nThe primary laws of human development which form the philosophical\nbasis of the Positive system, apply necessarily to all climates and\nraces whatsoever, the only difference being in the rapidity with\nwhich evolution takes place. The inferiority of other nations in this\nrespect is not inexplicable; and it will now be compensated by a growth\nof greater regularity than ours, and less interrupted by shocks and\noscillations. Obviously in our case systematic guidance was impossible,\nsince it is only now that our growth is complete that we can learn\nthe general laws common to it and to other cases. Wise and generous\nintervention of the West on behalf of our sister nations who are less\nadvanced, will form a noble field for Social Art, when based on sound\nscientific principles. Relative without being arbitrary, zealous and\nyet always temperate; such should be the spirit of this intervention;\nand thus conducted, it will form a system of moral and political\naction far nobler than the proselytism of theology or the extension\nof military empire. The time will come when it will engross the whole\nattention of the Positive Council; but for the present it must remain\nsecondary to other subjects of greater urgency.\n\nThe first to join the Western movement will necessarily be the\nremaining portion of the White race: which in all its branches is\nsuperior to the other two races. There are two Monotheist nations,\nand one Polytheist, which will be successively incorporated. Taken\ntogether, the three represent the propagation of Positivism in the East.\n\nThe vast population of the Russian empire was left outside the pale\nof Catholic Feudalism. By virtue of its Christianity, however,\nnotwithstanding its entire confusion of temporal and spiritual power,\nit holds the first place among the Monotheistic nations of the East.\nIts initiation into the Western movement will be conducted by two\nnations of intermediate position; Greece, connected with Russia by\nthe tie of religion; and Poland, united with her politically. Though\nneither of these nations is homogeneous in structure with Russia, it\nwould cause serious delay in the propagation of Positivism should the\nconnexion be altogether terminated.\n\nThe next step will be to Mohammedan Monotheism; first in Turkey,\nafterwards in Persia. Here Positivism will find points of sympathy\nof which Catholicism could not admit. Indeed these are already\nperceptible. Arab civilization transmitted Greek science to us: and\nthis will always secure for it an honourable place among the essential\nelements of the mediaeval system, regarded as a preparation for\nPositivism.\n\nLastly, we come to the Polytheists of India; and with them the\nincorporation of the White race will be complete. Already we see some\nspontaneous tendencies in this direction. Although from exceptional\ncauses Theocracy has been preserved in India, there exist real points\nof contact with Positivism; and in this respect the assistance of\nPersia will be of service. It is the peculiar privilege of the Positive\ndoctrine that, taking so complete a view of human development, it is\nalways able to appreciate the most ancient forms of social life at\ntheir true worth.\n\nIn these three stages of Positivist propagation, the Council will\nhave elected the first half of its foreign associates; admitting\nsuccessively a Greek, a Russian, an Egyptian, a Turk, a Persian and\nfinally, a Hindoo.\n\nThe Yellow race has adhered firmly to Polytheism. But it has been\nconsiderably modified in all its branches by Monotheism, either in the\nChristian or Mohammedan form. To some extent, therefore, it is prepared\nfor further change; and a sufficient number of adherents may soon be\nobtained for Tartary, China, Japan, and Malacca to be represented in\nthe Council.\n\nWith one last edition the organization of the Council is complete. The\nblack race has yet to be included. It should send two representatives;\none from Hayti, which had the energy to shake off the iniquitous\nyoke of slavery, and the other from central Africa, which has never\nyet been subjected to European influence. European pride has looked\nwith contempt on these African tribes, and imagines them destined to\nhopeless stagnation. But the very fact of their having been left to\nthemselves renders them better disposed to receive Positivism, the\nfirst system in which their Fetichistic faith has been appreciated, as\nthe origin from which the historic evolution of society has proceeded.\n\nIt is probable that the Council will have reached its limit of sixty\nmembers, before the spiritual interregnum in the central region of\nHumanity has been terminated. But even if political reconstruction were\nto proceed so rapidly in Europe as to render all possible assistance\nto this vast movement, it is hardly conceivable that the five stages\nof which it consists can be thoroughly effected within a period of two\ncenturies. But however this may be, the action of the Council will\nbecome increasingly valuable, not only for its direct influence on the\nless advanced nations, but also and more especially, because the proofs\nit will furnish of the universality of the new religion will strengthen\nits adherents in the Western family.\n\n [Conclusion. Perfection of\n the Positivist ideal]\n\nBut the time when Positivism can be brought into direct contact with\nthese preliminary phases is far distant, and we need not wait for it.\nThe features of the system stand out already with sufficient clearness\nto enable us to begin at once the work of mental and social renovation\nfor which our revolutionary predecessors so energetically prepared\nthe way. They however were blinded to the Future by their hatred of\nthe Past. With us, on the contrary, social sympathy rests upon the\nhistorical spirit, and at the same time strengthens it. Solidarity with\nour contemporaries is not enough for us, unless we combine it with the\nsense of Continuity with former times; and while we press on toward\nthe Future, we lean upon the Past, every phase of which our religion\nholds in honour. So far from the energy of our progressive movement\nbeing hampered by such feelings, it is only by doing full justice to\nthe Past, as no system but ours can do consistently, that we can obtain\nperfect emancipation of thought; because we are thus saved from the\nnecessity of making the slightest actual concession to systems which\nwe regard as obsolete. Understanding their nature and their purpose\nbetter than the sectaries who still empirically adhere to them, we can\nsee that each was in its time necessary as a preparatory step towards\nthe final system, in which all their partial and imperfect services\nwill be combined.\n\nComparing it especially with the last synthesis by which the Western\nfamily of nations has been directed, it is clear even from the\nindications given in this prefatory work, that the new synthesis is\nmore real, more comprehensive, and more stable. All that we find to\nadmire in the mediaeval system is developed and matured in Positivism.\nIt is the only system which can induce the intellect to accept its due\nposition of subordination to the heart. We recognize the piety and\nchivalry of our ancestors, who made a noble application of the best\ndoctrine that was possible in their time. We believe that were they\nliving now, they would be found in our ranks. They would acknowledge\nthe decay of their provisional phase of thought, and would see that in\nits present degenerate state it is only a symbol of reaction, and a\nsource of discord.\n\nAnd now that the doctrine has been shown to rest on a central\nprinciple, a principle which appeals alike to instinct and to\nreason, we may carry our comparison a step further, and convince all\nclear-seeing and honest minds that it is as superior to former systems\nin its influence over the emotions and the imagination, as it is from\nthe practical and intellectual aspect. Under it, Life, whether private\nor public, becomes in a still higher sense than under Polytheism, a\ncontinuous act of worship performed under the inspiration of universal\nLove. All our thoughts, feelings, and actions flow spontaneously to a\ncommon centre in Humanity, our Supreme Being; a Being who is real,\naccessible, and sympathetic, because she is of the same nature as\nher worshippers, though far superior to any one of them. The very\nconception of Humanity is a condensation of the whole mental and social\nhistory of man. For it implies the irrevocable extinction of theology\nand of war; both of which are incompatible with uniformity of belief\nand with co-operation of all the energies of the race. The spontaneous\nmorality of the emotions is restored to its due place; and Philosophy,\nPoetry, and Polity are thereby regenerated. Each is placed in its due\nrelation to the others, and is consecrated to the study, the praise,\nand the service of Humanity, the most relative and the most perfectible\nof all beings. Science passes from the analytic to the synthetic\nstate, being entrusted with the high mission of founding an objective\nbasis for man\u2019s action on the laws of the external world and of man\u2019s\nnature; a basis which is indispensable to control the oscillation of\nour opinions, the versatility of our feelings, and the instability of\nour purposes. Poetry assumes at last its true social function, and will\nhenceforth be preferred to all other studies. By idealizing Humanity\nunder every aspect, it enables us to give fit expression to the\ngratitude we owe to her, both publicly and as individuals; and thus it\nbecomes a source of the highest spiritual benefit.\n\nBut amidst the pleasures that spring from the study and the praise of\nHumanity, it must be remembered that Positivism is characterized always\nby reality and utility, and admits of no degeneration into asceticism\nor quietism. The Love by which it is inspired is no passive principle;\nwhile stimulating Reason and Imagination, it does so only to give a\nhigher direction to our practical activity. It was in practical life\nthat the Positive spirit first arose, extending thence to the sphere\nof thought, and ultimately to the moral sphere. The grand object of\nhuman existence is the constant improvement of the natural Order\nthat surrounds us: of our material condition first; subsequently of\nour physical, intellectual, and moral nature. And the highest of\nthese objects is moral progress, whether in the individual, in the\nfamily, or in society. It is on this that human happiness, whether\nin private or public life, principally depends. Political art, then,\nwhen subordinated to morality, becomes the most essential of all arts.\nIt consists in concentration of all human effort upon the service\nof Humanity in accordance with the natural laws which regulate her\nexistence.\n\nThe great merit of ancient systems of polity, of the Roman system\nespecially, was that precedence was always given to public interests.\nEvery citizen co-operated in the manner and degree suited to those\nearly times. But there were no means of providing proper regulation\nfor domestic life. In the Middle Ages, when Catholicism attempted to\nform a complete system of morality, private life was made the principal\nobject. All our affections were subjected to a most beneficial course\nof discipline, in which the inmost springs of vice and virtue were\nreached. But owing to the inadequacy of the doctrines on which the\nsystem rested, the solution of the problem was incoherent. The method\nby which Catholicism controlled the selfish propensities was one which\nturned men away from public life, and concentrated them on interests\nwhich were at once chimerical and personal. The immediate value of this\ngreat effort was, that it brought about for the first time a separation\nbetween moral and political power, which in the systems of antiquity\nhad always been confounded. But the separation was due rather to the\nforce of circumstances than to any conscious efforts; and it could not\nbe fully carried out, because it was incompatible with the spirit of\nthe Catholic doctrine and with the military character of society. Woman\nsympathized with Catholicism, but the people never supported it with\nenthusiasm, and it soon sank under the encroachments of the temporal\npower, and the degeneracy of the priesthood.\n\nPositivism is the only system which can renew this premature effort and\nbring it to a satisfactory issue. Combining the spirit of antiquity\nwith that of Catholic Feudalism, it proposes to carry out the political\nprogramme put forward by the Convention.\n\nPositive religion brings before us in a definite shape the noblest of\nhuman problems, the permanent preponderance of Social feeling over\nSelf-love. As far as the exceeding imperfection of our nature enables\nus to solve it, it would be solved by calling our home affections into\ncontinuous action; affections which stand half-way between self-love\nand universal sympathy. In order to consolidate and develop this\nsolution, Positivism lays down the philosophical and social principle\nof separation of theoretical from practical power. Theoretical power is\nconsultative; it directs education, and supplies general principles.\nPractical power directs action by special and imperative rules. All\nthe elements of society that are excluded from political government\nbecome guarantees for the preservation of this arrangement. The\npriests of Humanity, who are the systematic organs of the moderating\npower, will always find themselves supported, in their attempts to\nmodify the governing power, by women and by the people. But to be so\nsupported, they must be men who, in addition to the intellectual power\nnecessary for their mission, have the moral qualities which are yet\nmore necessary; who combine, that is, the tenderness of women with the\nenergy of the people. The first guarantee for the possession of such\nqualities is the sacrifice of political authority and even of wealth.\nThen we may at least hope to see the new religion taking the place\nof the old, because it will fulfil in a more perfect way the mental\nand social purposes for which the old religion existed. Monotheism\nwill lapse like Polytheism and Fetichism, into the domain of history;\nand will, like them, be incorporated into the system of universal\ncommemoration, in which Humanity will render due homage to all her\npredecessors.\n\n [Corruption of Monotheism]\n\nIt is not, then, merely on the ground of speculative truth that\nPositivists would urge all those who are still halting between two\nopinions, to choose between the absolute and the relative, between\nthe fruitless search for Causes and the solid study of Laws, between\nsubmission to arbitrary Wills and submission to demonstrable\nNecessities. It is for Feeling still more than for Reason to make the\ndecision; for upon it depends the establishment of a higher form of\nsocial life.\n\nMonotheism in Western Europe is now as obsolete and as injurious as\nPolytheism was fifteen centuries ago. The discipline in which its moral\nvalue principally consisted has long since decayed; and consequently\nthe sole effect of its doctrine, which has been so extravagantly\npraised, is to degrade the affections by unlimited desires, and to\nweaken the character by servile terrors. It supplied no field for the\nImagination, and forced it back upon Polytheism and Fetichism, which,\nunder Theology, form the only possible foundation for poetry. The\npursuits of practical life were never sincerely promoted by it, and\nthey advanced only by evading or resisting its influence. The noblest\nof all practical pursuits, that of social regeneration, is at the\npresent time in direct opposition to it. For by its vague notion of\nProvidence, it prevents men from forming a true conception of Law, a\nconception necessary for true prevision, on which all wise intervention\nmust be based.\n\nSincere believers in Christianity will soon cease to interfere with the\nmanagement of a world, where they profess themselves to be pilgrims and\nstrangers. The new Supreme Being is no less jealous than the old, and\nwill not accept the servants of two masters. But the truth is, that the\nmore zealous theological partisans, whether royalists, or aristocrats,\nor democrats, have now for a long time been insincere. God to them\nis but the nominal chief of a hypocritical conspiracy, a conspiracy\nwhich is even more contemptible than it is odious. Their object is to\nkeep the people from all great social improvements by assuring them\nthat they will find compensation for their miseries in an imaginary\nfuture life. The doctrine is already falling into discredit among the\nworking classes everywhere throughout the West, especially in Paris.\nAll theological tendencies, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Deist,\nreally serve to prolong and aggravate our moral anarchy, because they\nhinder the diffusion of that social sympathy and breadth of view,\nwithout which we can never attain fixity of principle and regularity\nof life. Every subversive scheme now afloat has either originated in\nMonotheism or has received its sanction. Even Catholicism has lost its\npower of controlling revolutionary extravagance in some of its own most\ndistinguished members.\n\nIt is for the sake of Order therefore, even more than of Progress,\nthat we call on all those who desire to rise above their present\ndisastrous state of oscillation in feeling and opinion, to make a\ndistinct choice between Positivism and Theology. For there are now but\ntwo camps: the camp of reaction and anarchy, which acknowledges more\nor less distinctly the direction of God: the camp of construction and\nprogress, which is wholly devoted to Humanity.\n\nThe Being upon whom all our thoughts are concentrated is one whose\nexistence is undoubted. We recognize that existence not in the Present\nonly, but in the Past, and even in the Future: and we find it always\nsubject to one fundamental Law, by which we are enabled to conceive\nof it as a whole. Placing our highest happiness in universal Love, we\nlive, as far as it is possible, for others; and this in public life\nas well as in private; for the two are closely linked together in our\nreligion; a religion clothed in all the beauty of Art, and yet never\ninconsistent with Science. After having thus exercised our powers to\nthe full, and having given a charm and sacredness to our temporary\nlife, we shall at last be for ever incorporated into the Supreme Being,\nof whose life all noble natures are necessarily partakers. It is only\nthrough the workers of Humanity that we can feel the inward reality and\ninexpressible sweetness of this incorporation. It is unknown to those\nwho being still involved in theological belief, have not been able to\nform a clear conception of the Future, and have never experienced the\nfeeling of pure self-sacrifice.\n\n\n    THE END\n\n\n    Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] The establishment of this great principle is the most important\nresult of my _System of Positive Philosophy_. This work was published\n1830-1842, with the title of _Course of Positive Philosophy_, because\nit was based upon a course of lectures delivered 1826-1829. But since\nthat time I have always given it the more appropriate name of System.\nShould the work reach a second edition, the correction will be made\nformally: meanwhile, this will, I hope, remove all misconception on the\nsubject.\n\n[2] [Comte afterwards added a seventh science, Ethics, (see vol. ii of\n_System of Positive Polity_).]\n\n[3] [See Cabanis, _Rapports du physique et du moral de l\u2019homme_, V^e\nmemoire, where he speaks of \u2018_les restes de l\u2019esprit de chevalerie,\nfruit ridicule de l\u2019odieuse f\u00e9odalit\u00e9_.\u2019]\n\n[4] Philosophy--the _love_ of wisdom.\n\n[5] [Written in 1848.]\n\n[6] On reconsideration, Comte saw fit to withdraw this proposal. See\n_Positive Polity_, vol. iv, ch. 5, p. 351.\n\n[7] [Clotilde de Vaux, see _Testament d\u2019Auguste Comte_, p. 550].\n\n[8] This law was introduced by Royer-Collard. It forbids discussion of\nthe private affairs of public men.\n\n[9] [_Testament d\u2019Auguste Comte_, p. 556].\n\n[10] [This story _Lucie_ is republished in Vol. i of _System of\nPositive Polity_.]\n\n[11] Toute la suite des hommes, pendant le cours de tant de si\u00e8cles,\ndoit \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme un m\u00eame homme qui subsiste toujours et qui\napprend continuellement.--Pascal, _Pens\u00e9es_, Part I, Art. I. [The whole\nsuccession of men during the course of so many centuries should be\nconsidered as one Man ever living and constantly learning.]\n\n[12] [See _The Positivist Calendar_, edited by H.\u00a0G. Jones (W. Reeves,\n1905).]\n\n[13] [_Tableau Historique des progr\u00e8s de l\u2019Esprit Humain_, Paris, 1900.]\n\n[14] [The Republic of 1848.]\n\n[15] [This report was republished in _Revue Occidentale_, July 1889;\nsee also an article and a document published by M. Pierre Laffitte in\nthe same review in January, 1890.]\n\n[16] [This committee was formed in 1903.]\n\n[17] This report was republished in _Revue Occidentale_, September,\n1885.\n\n[18] The relative position here assigned to England and Germany is\nreversed in the fourth volume of the _Politique Positive_.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes\n\n\nPunctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a\npredominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not\nchanged.\n\nSimple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced\nquotation marks retained.\n\nAmbiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.\n\nPage 320: \u201cthe creative process\u201d was misprinted as \u201cthe creature\nprocess\u201d; changed here.\n\nPage 399: \u201cone of its principal features\u201d was misprinted as\n\u201cprinciple\u201d; changed here.","title":"A General View of Positivism: Or, Summary exposition of the System of Thought and Life","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":135907}