While Rousseau does not prescribe communism or equality of wealth in his ideal commonwealth, he recommends that it should be, as far as possible, aimed at; and while he does not prohibit the holding of private property, he affirms that the community is entitled to dispose of the goods of all its members.

No writer of the eighteenth century contributed so much as Rousseau to diffuse the following beliefs: that human nature was originally, and is intrinsically, good; that science, art, and literature are essentially unfavourable to morality; that laws have been always and everywhere instituted for the oppression of the poor and weak; that private property is unjust, and has necessarily caused incalculable misery; that equality is of far more importance than liberty; that the history of civilisation has been a process of illusion, crime, and suffering, determined almost exclusively by the action of inexplicable accidents and of evil passions; that the basis of society in the future should be a contract in which an absolute sovereignty is vested in the community by the unlimited sacrifice of the independence of individuals; and that majorities, as the organs of the collective will, are entitled to punish, even with death, disobedience to any behests either as regards civil or religious matters which they see fit to enact and impose. By his advocacy of these and kindred tenets he profoundly affected social speculation and practice. How far his influence was good and how far it was evil, this is not the place to inquire. It was obviously both. It is not inaccurate to say of him, as Professor Graham has done, with reference to the very writings which have been under our consideration," the poor had found a powerful pleader, the dumb millions a voice, democracy its refounder, and humanity in the eighteenth century its typical representative man, who gave vent to its inmost sentiments, troubles, aspirations, and audacious spirit of revolt;"1 but it is just as correct also to say that in him the poor had found a persuasive seducer, the dumb millions a voice which by the follies it uttered discredited what was reasonable in their claims, democracy a reconstructor so unwise as to choose for its cornerstone the very falsehood on which despotism rests, and humanity in the eighteenth century the great literary exponent of those

1 Socialism New and Old, pp. 55, 56.

passions and errors which were "the seeds of the guillotine," the germs of the infamies of the Reign of Terror.1

The Abbé Morelly propounded views very similar to those of Rousseau, although on the whole even more radical and extreme, first in the 'Basiliade' (1753), and afterwards more systematically in the Code de la Nature' (1756), long erroneously attributed to Diderot. His social theories rest on a

Man, in his eyes, is simply

doctrine of materialistic egoism. a physical and sentient organism, whose sole end and summum bonum is pleasure. Human nature is in itself wholly innocent and good. "Morality implies no antagonism between the passions and duty, for the former are legitimate and sovereign, and would cause no harm if allowed free play; it is just by the irritation and restraint of the laws and institutions which pretend to have a right to confine and regulate them, that they are rendered corrupt and mischievous. The great social problem is to find a situation in which the passions will be fully gratified, while it will be almost impossible for men to be tempted or depraved. It can only be solved through the elimination of avarice, the only vice in the world, the universal pest of mankind, the slow fever or consumptive disease of society." And this can only be effected by the suppression of private property, by rendering the possession of all wealth indivisible and collective and the enjoyment of all products common, by the State regulation of marriage, and by the abolition of public and private worship.

The chief general works on the life and writings of Rousseau are those of Musset-Pathay, Morin, Brackerhoff, Saint-Marc Girardin, and Morley. A good account of his religious, political, social, and educational opinions will be found in Emil Feuerlein's three articles-Rousseau'sche Studien-in the first and second volumes of the 'Gedanke.' Bluntschli, Barante, Janet, and others, have specially expounded his views on the origin of society, social contract, natural rights, &c.; and Bourgeand has treated of his religious teaching (J. J. Rousseau's Religionsphilosophie, 1883). Of exceptional interest are the following: 'J. J. Rousseau jugé par les Genevois d'aujourdhui' (Genève, 1879); 'Les origines des idées politiques de Rousseau,' par M. Jules Vuy (Genève, 1882); Baudrillard, ‘J. J. Rousseau et le socialisme moderne' (in Études de philosophie morale, t. 1); Caro, 'Le fin d'un siècle,' t. 1, c. 3, 4; Renouvier's articles in 'Crit. Phil.,' année xiii.; and Prof. E. Caird's paper in 'Cont. Rev.' for Sept. 1877. Few have written regarding Rousseau with so much judgment and insight as F. C. Schlosser, 'Hist. of the Eighteenth Century,' vol. i. pp. 285-314, Eng. tr. Rousseau treats of history from an educational point of view in 'Emile,' iv. 1.

The view which Morelly gave of the place and functions of the passions in the social economy has a special claim to be remarked, owing to the use which was made of it by Fourier and his followers. Morelly was the direct and immediate precursor of Fourier, inasmuch as he laid the foundation-stone of Phalansterianism. But the system which he himself attempted to build on it was a very different one; it was a socialism of the kind which has become familiar to us in recent times as Collectivism. He is, perhaps, more entitled than any one else to be called the originator of the theory of modern Collectivism. A collectivist socialism was his ideal of the future of human society. As to the past, the course of actual history, he represented it as having been essentially a process of falsehood and cruelty, of folly and crime. He was, like so many of his contemporaries pessimist as to the past and optimist as to the future; that he was a social revolutionist followed naturally from his non-recognition of the continuity of history.1

The Abbé de Mably (1709-1785) was a man of a very different type of character than either Rousseau or Morelly, but in its general scope and direction his thinking had much in common with theirs. He was austere, independent, and disinterested; he cared little for pleasure, power, or fame; conscience was his stay and guide; he saw in virtue the chief source and primary condition of individual and social prosperity. None of his contemporaries insisted so strongly on the intimate relationship of morals and politics; the dependence of the latter on the former seemed to him the great lesson taught by history. He was not a believer in Christianity, but he had a steady faith in God and the moral law. Although in his earliest publication he appeared as the eulogist of absolute monarchy, he soon afterwards became an ardent admirer of the republican form of government, and he did much to spread and confirm republican predilections in France. His political views were mainly the results of his reflections on ancient history; the institutions of classical antiquity seemed to him to furnish models of political wisdom; and the lives of illustrious citizens of Greece and Rome suggested to him ideals.

1 F. Villegardelle, 'Code de la nature, augmenté de fragments importants de la Basiliade, avec l'analyse raisonné du système sociale de Morelly.' 1847.

of political virtue. Sparta was the special object of his idolatrous veneration. Of course, the theatrical antiquity of which he was the panegyrist never existed elsewhere than in excited and romantic imaginations.

He has expounded his political and juristic creed in two treatises of considerable interest, the 'Entretiens de Phocion' (1763) and 'De la Legislation' (1776). For our purpose it is sufficient simply to note the following points. Mably has enlarged on the dependence of politics and legislation on morality, and has strongly insisted that morality cannot maintain itself in a society devoid of religious faith, expressly condemning the opinions of Machiavelli and Bayle to the contrary. He recommends a community of goods and the banishment of commerce and the fine arts from a republic. He represents social inequalities as unjust and pernicious, and private property as their primary cause. He holds that equality was the first stage of society, and that it will be also its final form. He admits, however, that it cannot be easily or immediately attained, and therefore merely advises that properties be kept small, luxury in its various forms repressed, and all due care taken to prevent both the growth of pauperism and the individual accumulation of wealth. It shows the extent to which he was misled by his admiration of the Greek republics, that, in despite of his socialism and equalitarianism, he would exclude artisans from participation in public affairs.

Two of Mably's smaller treatises belong to the department of Historic-the-De l'Étude de l'Histoire' (1778), and 'De la manière d'écrire Histoire' (1782). Both are contained in the twelfth volume of the collected edition of his works. They are rather commonplace and disappointing productions. The first mentioned, written for the use of the young Prince of Parma, dwells on the benefits which a ruler may derive from the study of history, and especially from the historical study of law and government. The other, which is the better of the two, especially insists on the importance to an historian of the study of the principles of morality and politics. This latter treatise has a certain measure of interest from the way in which the classical historians, Thucydides, Sallust, Tacitus, and Plutarch, are upheld as models, while De Thou, Voltaire, Hume, and Robert

son are subjected to sharp censures. Voltaire's Essai sur les Mœurs,' for example, is pronounced to be only "une pasquinade digne des lecteurs qui l'admirent sur la foi de nos philosophes (p. 445). Of modern historians Vertot alone is praised by Mably with warmth. What one misses above all in the treatises to which I refer, is any trace of reflection on the conditions and methods of historical research. No attempt is made in them to analyse the processes of historical investigation, and to determine what requirements ought to be fulfilled in sifting and appreciating historical evidence. While they belong, therefore, to the province of Historic, they cannot be said to have been of any special, and certainly not of any scientific, importance therein.

Neither Rousseau nor Morelly gave much attention to the study of history. Mably did, and he wrote at least one historical work of very considerable merit-'Observations sur l'Histoire de la France' (2 vols. 1765, with posthumous continuation, 2 vols. 1790). It was re-edited by M. Guizot, and well deserved the honour, owing to the light which it casts on the constitutional history of France. It was not only actually drawn from the primary documents, but quoted them throughout, so far as they were founded on, and thus the reader can judge for himself whether or not Mably correctly interpreted the authorities on which he relied. It will be found that he frequently did not; that he was in many instances an unsatisfactory exegete; but this does not deprive him of the merit, the rare and immense merit, of always adducing for his statements as to historical fact what he believed to be the original and proper evidence for them. evidence for them. He was among the first of historians fully and practically to recognise that what is of prime importance to a student of history is to obtain a clear view of the evidence, and that where this is not given, historical narrative, although it may please the imagination or exercise faith, cannot train the judgment or satisfy the appetite for truth. The defects to be found in Mably's treatment of French history arose mainly from the rigidity of his historical ideal and the narrowness of his historical sympathy. He so overestimated the pagan type of virtue, that he could not fairly appreciate the manifestations of Christian life. His taste was so exclusively classical