按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
ght to report their lectures； should not have the right to print them？ Is it just that MM。 Noel and Chapsal； overseers of the University； should use their influence in selling their selections from literature to the youth whose studies they are instructed to superintend in consideration of a salary？ And； if that is not just； is it not proper to refuse literary property to every author holding public offices； and receiving pensions or sinecures？
Again； shall the privilege of the author extend to irreligious and immoral works； calculated only to corrupt the heart； and obscure the understanding？ To grant this privilege is to sanction immorality by law； to refuse it is to censure the author。 And since it is impossible； in the present imperfect state of society； to prevent all violations of the moral law； it will be necessary to open a license…office for books as well as morals。 But； then； three…fourths of our literary people will be obliged to register； and； recognized thenceforth on their own declaration as PROSTITUTES； they will necessarily belong to the public。 We pay toll to the prostitute； we do not endow her。
Finally； shall plagiarism be classed with forgery？ If you reply 〃Yes；〃 you appropriate in advance all the subjects of which books treat； if you say 〃No；〃 you leave the whole matter to the decision of the judge。 Except in the case of a clandestine reprint； how will he distinguish forgery from quotation； imitation； plagiarism； or even coincidence？ A savant spends two years in calculating a table of logarithms to nine or ten decimals。 He prints it。 A fortnight after his book is selling at half…price； it is impossible to tell whether this result is due to forgery or competition。 What shall the court do？ In case of doubt； shall it award the property to the first occupant？ As well decide the question by lot。
These； however； are trifling considerations； but do we see that； in granting a perpetual privilege to authors and their heirs； we really strike a fatal blow at their interests？ We think to make booksellers dependent upon authors；a delusion。 The booksellers will unite against works； and their proprietors。 Against works； by refusing to push their sale； by replacing them with poor imitations； by reproducing them in a hundred indirect ways； and no one knows how far the science of plagiarism； and skilful imitation may be carried。 Against proprietors。 Are we ignorant of the fact； that a demand for a dozen copies enables a bookseller to sell a thousand； that with an edition of five hundred he can supply a kingdom for thirty years？ What will the poor authors do in the presence of this omnipotent union of booksellers？ I will tell them what they will do。 They will enter the employ of those whom they now treat as pirates； and； to secure an advantage； they will become wage laborers。 A fit reward for ignoble avarice； and insatiable pride。＇1＇
＇1＇ The property fever is at its height among writers and artists； and it is curious to see the complacency with which our legislators and men of letters cherish this devouring passion。 An artist sells a picture； and then； the merchandise delivered； assumes to prevent the purchaser from selling engravings； under the pretext that he； the painter； in selling the original； has not sold his DESIGN。 A dispute arises between the amateur and the artist in regard to both the fact and the law。 M。 Villemain； the Minister of Public Instruction； being consulted as to this particular case； finds that the painter is right； only the property in the design should have been specially reserved in the contract： so that； in reality； M。 Villemain recognizes in the artist a power to surrender his work and prevent its communication； thus contradicting the legal axiom； One CANNOT GIVE AND KEEP AT THE SAME TIME。 A strange reasoner is M。 Villemain！ An ambiguous principle leads to a false conclusion。 Instead of rejecting the principle； M。 Villemain hastens to admit the conclusion。 With him the _reductio ad absurdum_ is a convincing argument。 Thus he is made official defender of literary property； sure of being understood and sustained by a set of loafers； the disgrace of literature and the plague of public morals。 Why； then； does M。 Villemain feel so strong an interest in setting himself up as the chief of the literary classes； in playing for their benefit the role of Trissotin in the councils of the State； and in becoming the accomplice and associate of a band of profligates；_soi…disant_ men of letters；who for more than ten years have labored with such deplorable success to ruin public spirit； and corrupt the heart by warping the mind？
Contradictions of contradictions！〃 Genius is the great leveller of the world；〃 cries M。 de Lamartine； 〃then genius should be a proprietor。 Literary property is the fortune of democracy。〃 This unfortunate poet thinks himself profound when he is only puffed up。 His eloquence consists solely in coupling ideas which clash with each other： ROUND SQUARE； DARK SUN； FALLEN ANGEL； PRIEST and LOVE； THOUGHT and POETRY； GUNIUS ｛？？？｝； and FORTUNE； LEVELING and PROPERTY。 Let us tell him； in reply； that his mind is a dark luminary； that each of his discourses is a disordered harmony； and that all his successes； whether in verse or prose； are due to the use of the extraordinary in the treatment of the most ordinary subjects。
〃Le National；〃 in reply to the report of M。 Lamartine； endeavors to prove that literary property is of quite a different nature from landed property； as if the nature of the right of property depended on the object to which it is applied； and not on the mode of its exercise and the condition of its existence。 But the main object of 〃Le National〃 is to please a class of proprietors whom an extension of the right of property vexes： that is why 〃Le National〃 opposes literary property。 Will it tell us； once for all； whether it is for equality or against it？
6。 OBJECTION。Property in occupied land passes to the heirs of the occupant。 〃Why；〃 say the authors； 〃should not the work of genius pass in like manner to the heirs of the man of genius？〃 M。 Wolowski's reply： 〃Because the labor of the first occupant is continued by his heirs； while the heirs of an author neither change nor add to his works。 In landed property； the continuance of labor explains the continuance of the right。〃
Yes； when the labor is continued； but if the labor is not continued； the right ceases。 Thus is the right of possession； founded on personal labor； recognized by M。 Wolowski。
M。 Wolowski decides in favor of granting to authors property in their works for a certain number of years； dating from the day of their first publication。
The succeeding lectures on patents on inventions were no less instructive； although intermingled with shocking contradictions inserted with a view to make the useful truths more palatable。 The necessity for brevity compels me to terminate this examination here； not without regret。
Thus； of two eclectic jurists； who attempt a defence of property； one is entangled in a set of dogmas without principle or method； and is constantly talking nonsense； and the other designedly abandons the cause of property； in order to present under the same name the theory of individual possession。 Was I wrong in claiming that confusion reigned among legists； and ought I to be legally prosecuted for having said that their science henceforth stood convicted of falsehood； its glory eclipsed？
The ordinary resources of the law no longer sufficing； philosophy； political economy； and the framers of systems have been consulted。 All the oracles appealed to have been discouraging。
The philosophers are no clearer to…day than at the time of the eclectic efflorescence； nevertheless； through their mystical apothegms； we can distinguish the words PROGRESS； UNITY； ASSOCIATION； SOLIDARITY； FRATERNITY； which are certainly not reassuring to proprietors。 One of these philosophers； M。 Pierre Leroux； has written two large books； in which he claims to show by all religious； legislative； and philosophical systems that； since men are responsible to each other； equality of conditions is the final law of society。 It is true that this philosopher admits a kin