SAINT-SIMON.
When we turn from Babœuf and Cabet to Saint-Simon we discover a man
of a new type. He differed from his predecessors in aims, purposes,
and character. We find in him one who did not desire the dead and
uninteresting level of communism, but placed before him as an ideal a
social system which should more nearly render to man the just fruits of
his own individual exertions than does our present society.
Count Henry de Saint-Simon[37] was born at Paris in 1760. He belonged to
a noble family of France, which traced its origin to Charlemagne. The
family attained distinction early in the fifteenth century through the
gallant conduct of one of its members at the battle of Agincourt. It
divided into five branches in the seventeenth century. The celebrated
Duke de Saint-Simon, author of the “Memoirs of the Reign of Louis XIV.
and the Regency,” belonged to one branch; Louis François de Saint-Simon,
Marquis de Sandricourt, grandfather of the socialist, to another. Among
the sons of the marquis were Balthasar Henri, Maximilien Henri, and
Charles François Simeon, of whom the two latter became distinguished.
Balthasar Henri was the father of the subject of this chapter.
Although not the grandson of the duke, as has been erroneously
supposed,[38] Saint-Simon would naturally have inherited his titles and
property. They were lost to him, however, through the quarrel of his
father with the duke. The titles he lost were those of a grandee of
Spain and a duke of France, while the property he would have inherited
yielded an annual income of 500,000 francs. “I have lost the titles
and the fortune of the Duke of Saint-Simon,” he writes, “but I have
inherited his passion for glory.” This was manifested in a singular way
when he was only sixteen years of age. That he might not forget the
grand destiny in store for him, he ordered his servant to awaken him
every morning with the words, “Arise, Monsieur le Comte, you have grand
deeds to perform.” Saint-Simon had already entered the army at this
time, and the year afterwards went to America and fought in the War of
the Revolution under Washington. He took part in the siege of Yorktown
and witnessed the surrender of Lord Cornwallis. He distinguished himself
for bravery on this occasion, and received honorable recognition of his
gallant conduct from the Society of the Cincinnati. Upon his return to
France, he was made colonel of the Regiment of Aquitaine at the early
age of twenty-three. But he soon resigned his position and abandoned
all hopes of a military career, although his prospects were certainly
brilliant. In speaking of his sojourn in the United States, he says: “I
occupied myself much more with political science than military tactics.
The war in itself did not interest me, but the purpose of the war
interested me exceedingly, and this interest enabled me to endure its
hardships without repugnance. I desire the attainment of the purpose, I
was accustomed to say to myself, and I ought not to rebel against the
means thereto.... My vocation was not that of a soldier; I was drawn
towards a very different, indeed, I may say, diametrically opposite, kind
of activity. The life purpose which I set before me was to study the
movements of the human mind, in order that I might then labor for the
perfection of civilization. From that time forward I devoted myself to
this work without reserve; to it I consecrated my entire life.”[39]
Saint-Simon was taken prisoner by the British when returning to France
in the _Ville de Paris_, and carried to Jamaica, where he was detained
until the close of the war. In returning to Europe he visited Mexico,
and there made an attempt to carry out one of the magnificent plans for
the advancement of mankind which he had been revolving in his mind.
He endeavored to interest the viceroy in a project for building a
canal to unite the Atlantic with the Pacific. While his exertions were
unsuccessful, it is interesting to note that one who drew his inspiration
largely from Saint-Simon—viz., De Lesseps—may yet execute his plan.
A few years later Saint-Simon formed designs for a canal to connect
Madrid with the sea, and might possibly have succeeded in realizing them,
had not the French Revolution recalled him to France. He sided with the
people, although his family traditions and early training would have led
him to connect himself with the royalists, and although in the struggle
he lost the property he had inherited from his mother. He was elected
president of the commune where his property was situated, in 1789, and in
an address to the electors proclaimed his intention to renounce the title
of count, since he regarded it as inferior to that of citizen; and he
refused another office lest it should be supposed he owed it to his rank.
All this, however, did not prevent his imprisonment on account of his
nobility, which rendered him in the eyes of the terrorists a dangerous
character. He was kept in prison, first at St. Pélagie, afterwards at the
Luxembourg, for eleven months, and was released after the Revolution of
Thermidor. It was at this time that his ancestor Charlemagne appeared to
him and encouraged him with a prophecy of future greatness. He describes
the vision in these words: “At the most cruel epoch of the Revolution,
and during a night of my detention at the Luxembourg, Charlemagne
appeared to me and said: ‘Since the world has existed, no family has
enjoyed the honor of producing a hero and a philosopher of the first
rank; this honor has been reserved for my house. My son, thy success as a
philosopher will equal mine as a warrior and politician.’”
Upon his release from prison Saint-Simon began to speculate in the
confiscated national lands, in order to obtain money to enable him to
prosecute his plans for the improvement of society. He realized 144,000
francs from his investments, and then retired from business, as he
thought he had all the property he needed. He devoted the following
seven years to preparatory study, taking up his abode first in the
neighborhood of the École Polytechnique, afterwards near the École
de Médecine. Physiology and the physical sciences interested him
chiefly. What he had in view was a science of the sciences, a science
to classify facts derived from all sciences and to unite them into one
whole; and it was from him that his scholar, Auguste Comte, derived the
idea of founding a universal science, as he attempted in his “Cours de
Philosophie Positive.” In fact this work was only a development of his
“Système Politique Positive,” which he, as a scholar of Saint-Simon,
wrote at the instance of his master.[40]
Saint-Simon thought it necessary to add an experimental training to
his theoretical one in order to prepare himself for his mission, and
accomplished this by living every kind of life, from that of the wealthy
entertainer of savants to one of poverty and dissipation. While this
attempt to pass through all the experiences and feelings of a lifetime in
a few years was not altogether unsuccessful, it was unfortunate in making
him prematurely old.
Saint-Simon began his career as an author and social reformer at the age
of forty-three, in 1803, and never abandoned it until his death in 1825.
His life was a sad one. His property was soon gone, and he often worked
at his system while suffering the direst want, but he was sustained
by the spirit of the martyr. Saint-Simon endeavored to bring to pass
the happy future which he believed possible for the human race. “The
imagination of poets,” said he, “has placed the golden age at the cradle
of the human race, amidst the ignorance and grossness of the earliest
times. It had been better to relegate the iron age to that period. The
golden age of humanity is not behind us; it is to come, and will be found
in the perfection of the social order. Our fathers have not seen it; our
children will one day behold it. It is our duty to prepare the way for
them.”
Saint-Simon had thus devoted his life to a cause which he held sacred,
and he pursued it through fortune and misfortune, through good report
and through evil report. For a time he occupied the position of copyist
at a salary of $200 per annum; a strange place for a scion of one of
the proudest families of France. He copied nine hours a day, and robbed
himself of sleep in order to develop his philosophical and social
system. His health had begun to fail him, when he was relieved from his
deplorable situation by the kindness of a man who had been his valet
in brighter days. This servant, one of the few who never lost faith in
Saint-Simon, supported him, and assisted him in the publication of his
works. The death in 1810 of the former valet, Diard by name, again left
Saint-Simon in a wretched state, but he continued his labors, and wrote
two works, entitled “Sur la Science de l’Homme” and “Sur la Gravitation
Universelle.” As he had no means of printing them, he sent them in
manuscript to various scientists and other prominent men, with the
following letter:
“_Sir_,—Be my saviour. I am dying of starvation. For fifteen
days I eat only bread and drink water; I work without a
fire, and I have sold everything save my garments to cover
the expense of the copies. It is a passion for science and
the public good, it is the desire of discovering a means of
terminating in a peaceable manner the dreadful crisis in which
I find the entire European society engaged, that has caused
me to fall into this condition of distress; therefore, it is
without blushing that I am able to confess my misery and demand
assistance to enable me to continue my work.”
This letter met with no very favorable response, though Cuvier made
him a small donation and others showed a mild interest in his welfare.
His disciples, however, were afterwards proud of it. The following
exhortation follows its quotation in the “Doctrine de Saint-Simon:”[41]
“Children of Saint-Simon! generations of the future! guard as a religious
memorial these lines which your father has left you as a sacred legacy.
When his word shall have renewed the face of the earth, when the doctrine
of recompense according to works shall have been realized among men,
when the last of the living shall obtain from the solicitude of society a
guaranteed subsistence, a remuneration in proportion to merits, children
of Saint-Simon, you will then love to repeat how, in order to accomplish
his mission of regeneration, your father was reduced to begging.”
A small pension was finally granted Saint-Simon by his family, and
he worked on quietly till 1823, but he found little sympathy and
encouragement, and for once his courage deserted him. He was more than
sixty years of age, his strength began to decrease, he was in want
of every comfort and convenience and lacked the support and helpful
consolations of domestic life. In his state of loneliness he was filled
with despair by the thought that his life had been a failure, and he
resolved to put an end to his own wretched existence.
Fortunately, however, he only succeeded in inflicting severe but not
fatal injuries upon himself. His pitiable condition appears to have moved
some kind hearts, for he was cared for tenderly until he recovered, when
he regained faith in his mission and worked more diligently than ever. In
the same year he finished his “Catéchisme des Industriels,” and in 1825,
the year of his death, he completed the “Nouveau Christianisme.” These
two works and his “Système Industriel,” published in 1821-22, are his
three most important productions.
Perhaps the most celebrated of them all is his last work, the “Nouveau
Christianisme,” the New Christianity. It was from this that his disciples
chiefly drew their inspiration, and it was in this that his hopes centred
as he lay on his death-bed, surrounded by his friends, Auguste Comte,
Rodrigues, and others. Reybaud[42] describes the last scene in the
following manner: “Saint-Simon, feeling the approach of death, assembled
about his bed his confidants and said to them: ‘For twelve days, my
friends, I have been occupied with plans designed to assure the success
of our enterprise (a projected journal called _Le Producteur_); for
three hours, despite my sufferings, I have been endeavoring to present
to you a _résumé_ of my thoughts. You have arrived at a period where by
your combined efforts you will achieve a great success; ... The fruit
is ripe; you are able to gather it. The last part of my labors, the New
Christianity, will not be immediately understood. It has been thought
that every religious system ought to disappear because men have succeeded
in proving the weakness and insufficiency of Catholicism. People are
deceived in this. Religion cannot disappear from the world; it can only
be changed. Rodrigues,’ addressing his favorite scholar, ‘do not forget,
but remember that to accomplish grand deeds you must be enthusiastic. All
my life is comprised in this one thought; to guarantee to all men the
freest development of their faculties.’
“He paused for a few moments, then in the final struggle added,
“‘Forty-eight hours after our second publication the party of the
laborers will be formed; the future is ours.’
“After having said these words, he raised his hand to his head and died.”
There are certain leading doctrines in Saint-Simon’s writings, which I
will endeavor to present briefly, before passing on to a consideration
of his followers, the Saint-Simonians. Comparatively unimportant changes
of opinion respecting the details of his practical programme, as well as
other minor points, will be omitted in this presentation.
We find running through all the writings of Saint-Simon, from his first
work, “Lettres d’un Habitant de Genève,” to his last one, the “Nouveau
Christianisme,” an aim and purpose which may be considered the leading
feature of his system. It is the attempt to discover an authority which
shall rule the inner life of man as well as his external acts. There
have been powers which were able to do this. The Catholic Church, up
to the fifteenth century and the beginnings of the Reformation, was
one. Since then, however, it has failed to embody in itself all the
advances of science; it has consequently lost its hold on the minds of
men, has declined in influence, and ceased to be an organic bond uniting
different nations and molding men’s lives. The present age is, therefore,
critical: that is to say, the preponderating factors entering into it are
disintegrating. This was seen in the French Revolution, the culmination
of this period, which was destructive. This critical period was necessary
to clear away hinderances and prepare for an organic and constructive
period, which ought now to follow, since the time is ripe for a new
social system based on universal association.
We are now in a transitional stage which is called a crisis.[43] The
problem is to terminate the crisis. This can be accomplished only by
an advance in knowledge, accompanied by a passage from the feudal and
theological to the industrial and scientific system. War and industry
occupied the Middle Ages and must now be replaced by industry alone.
Belief, faith, having lost its power, must be replaced by knowledge.
Knowledge and industry are to be united and govern the world. They are to
furnish to men the guidance and leadership they need and desire.
Carlyle said that the poor laborer “would fain find for himself a
superior that should lovingly and wisely govern,” and that the wish and
prayer of all human hearts was “give me a leader; a true leader, not a
false sham-leader; a true leader, that he may guide me on the true way,
that I may be loyal to him, that I may swear fealty to him and follow
him, and feel that it is well with me.”[44] So thought Saint-Simon, when
he appealed to thinkers and workers to unite and lead. He would gladly
have seen England and France join in this movement, believing that they
could draw the other powers into it.
What were the specific objects of this leadership? What were the
functions of this restored authority?
First, universal peace was to be guaranteed. Formerly, the Catholic
Church, in its character of arbiter of nations, imposed a wholesome
restraint on kings, and lessened the number of wars. Since the decay of
belief it was no longer possible for it to accomplish this. A European
parliament composed of true leaders must now arbitrate between nations.
This was ever a favorite theme of Saint-Simonism, and modern sentiment
and agitation in favor of peace owe more than is generally known to
Saint-Simon and his followers.
Second, leadership is to establish universal association, guaranteeing
labor to all, and a reward in proportion to services rendered. Equality
is to be avoided, as involving greater injustice than our present
economic life. Recompense in proportion to merit is the true maxim.
But as all are to be guaranteed work, all must work either mentally
or physically. In a socially regenerated state there is no room left
for idlers. An idler is a parasite; he devours what others produce and
makes no return. Wealthy idlers are thieves; another class of idlers
consists of beggars, and this last class of do-nothings, we are told
by Saint-Simon, is scarcely less contemptible and dangerous than the
first.[45] This makes it sufficiently evident that the Saint-Simonians
were acting in the spirit of their master in proposing the abolition of
inheritance.
Again, this new society would not be ascetic, like the old
Christianity—Saint-Simon’s kingdom was of this world. Flesh and spirit
both had their rights, and their harmonious union and development alone
formed the perfect man. Everything that was good and true and beautiful
was to be encouraged. Luther is even accused of heresy because he
rejected art as a handmaid of religion. The new society is religious and
holy, and its chiefs are its priests.
Revolution is injurious and is not to be looked to as a means of social
regeneration. It is destructive, whereas a constructive power is
sought.[46] Reform must be brought about by public opinion; and public
opinion is to be enlightened by the printed and spoken word. An appeal
is made to royalty to assist in this noble work, as its interests are at
one with the industrials, and opposed to those of the do-nothings. In the
new state the king is to take the title of the “First Industrial of his
kingdom.”[47]
While Saint-Simon is not to be made responsible for all the later
extravagance of his school, it is true that authority is to be found
in his works for the fundamental ideas of his followers, and even for
their practical measures before the separation which took place between
Enfantin and Bazard. They were acting in accordance with his dying
instructions in organizing and in preaching in behalf of labor. I am
unable to separate, as some do, Saint-Simon from his disciples. So long
as they were united and moderate they were carrying out consistently his
teachings. They simply developed his thoughts and expressed precisely
notions at which he had only hinted in vague and indefinite language.
The New Christianity was the Bible of the Saint-Simonian religion.
Saint-Simon held that God had founded the Christian Church, and that we
ought to honor the Fathers of the Church with the deepest reverence.
Catholics and Protestants had, however, perverted the only true and
valid Christian principle, and it was this he sought to restore. “In the
New Christianity,” said he, “all morality will be derived immediately
from this principle; men ought to regard each other as brothers. This
principle, which belongs to primitive Christianity, will receive a
glorification, and in its new form will read: Religion must aid society
in its chief purpose, which is the most rapid improvement in the lot of
the poor.” It is thus that the social question becomes the essence of
religion. This was the starting-point of Saint-Simon’s disciples, and led
to the formation of a Saint-Simonian sect with a priesthood.
But let us devote a few moments to a description of the economic and
social organization proposed by the Saint-Simonians, before discussing
the religious society they founded to do honor to the memory of
Saint-Simon, to assist in carrying our their socialistic schemes, and to
satisfy the yearnings of hearts which refused to find satisfaction and
contentment in the Christian Church.
Saint-Simonism is the first example of pure socialism, by which I
understand an economic system in which production is entirely carried
on in common, and the fruits of labor distributed according to some
ideal standard, which appears to the promoters of the scheme just. This
standard will, of course, vary according to the subjective ideas of
different socialists. Any plan, to be practicable, must necessarily be a
compromise between various views and historical antecedents.
Another writer defines “Socialism Proper”—by which he means about
what I understand by Pure Socialism—as follows: “It is that system
which recognizes inequality both in the capacity and requirements of
individuals, and accordingly allows wages to be proportionate to work
done, and admits of private income along with collective property.”[48]
The Saint-Simonians were led to socialism by observing the ill-regulated
distribution of economic goods under our present social _régime_. They
found the idle surfeited in luxuries and the diligent without the
comforts and often without even the necessaries of life, the former
enjoying the right to live as parasites on the fruits of the toil of the
busy, the latter enjoying the right to choose between hard and ill-paid
labor and death by starvation. They were able to perceive no sufficient
connection between merit and recompense. Consequently the world appeared
in a state of disharmony and they proposed to restore harmony by a new
economic system.
It may be as well to state here that political economists are generally
inclined to admit a certain justice in such complaints and only object to
socialistic schemes as impracticable or as involving still worse evils.
To show how far a man who holds a high rank as an orthodox political
economist can go in his objection to the present method of distributing
economic goods, it may be well to cite a celebrated passage from John
Stuart Mill’s “Political Economy:” “If the bulk of the human race are
always to remain as at present, slaves to toil in which they have no
interest and therefore feel no interest—drudging from early morning till
late at night for bare necessaries and with all the intellectual and
moral deficiencies which that implies—without resources either in mind
or feeling—untaught, for they cannot be better taught than fed; selfish,
for all their thoughts are required for themselves; without interests
or sentiments as citizens and members of society, and with a sense of
injustice rankling in their minds, equally for what they have not and
what others have; I know not what there is which should make a person of
any capacity of reason concern himself about the destinies of the human
race.”[49] In another place Mill says that if the institution of private
property _necessarily_ carried with it all the sufferings and injustices
of the present state of society, and a choice had to be made between
private property and communism, “all the difficulties, great or small, of
communism would be but as dust in the balance.”[50]
Now, the Saint-Simonians believed it possible to remedy these evils of
distribution only by the substitution of state property for private
property. At the same time, they rejected any equal distribution of
labor’s products, which would give the active and energetic no more
than the slow and indolent, which would treat alike the stupid clown,
who was only a burden and a nuisance, and a great genius whose talents
increased the wealth and prosperity of the nation. The Saint-Simonians
held that men were by nature unequal, and that it was right to reward
superior power, when exerted for the general good. Their idea was that
each one should labor according to his capacity and be rewarded according
to the services rendered. They wished to organize civil society on the
plan of an army. This thought is distinctly expressed by one of their
leaders in these words: “In the army gradations in rank and authority
are already established, while in civil life that is precisely what
is wanting; and in an enterprise conducted upon the principle of
association, a central administration is imperiously required.”[51] The
officers are the directing authority in this scheme, and they decide on
the value of the services rendered to society and reward the citizens
accordingly. As society consists of priests, savants, and industrials—the
industrials comprising those engaged in manufactures, agriculture, and
commerce[52]—so the government consists of the chiefs of the priests, the
chiefs of the savants, and the chiefs of the industrials. All property
belongs to the church, _i.e._, to the state, and every profession
or trade is a religious exercise and has its rank in the social
hierarchy.[53]
It is not clearly stated how the ruling body was to be selected, whether
by popular vote or otherwise. The idea of the Saint-Simonians seems
to have been, however, that the good and wise, the best, would be
voluntarily and without dissension selected as leaders—an idea scarcely
warranted by the world’s experience with universal suffrage.
The Saint-Simonians necessarily rejected inheritance from their scheme,
as they regarded idlers as thieves, and wished each one to be rewarded
only in accordance with his own individual merits. All should start with
equal advantages and only avail themselves of nature’s inequalities,
_i.e._, superior talents. Christ’s command was “Away with slavery!”
Saint-Simon’s, “Away with inheritance!” Property now inherited would
naturally become common property in the new society.
The Saint-Simonians were accused in the Chamber of Deputies of advocating
community of goods and community of wives. They defended themselves in a
_brochure_ dated October 1, 1830, which it is worth while to quote, as
it gives their ideas on these two important subjects:[54]
“Yes, without doubt, the Saint-Simonians profess peculiar views regarding
property and the future of women, as well as concerning religion, power,
liberty, and, finally, concerning all the great problems which are
agitated so violently in Europe to-day. But these are very different from
those ascribed to them. The system of community of goods means a division
among all the members of society, either of the means of production or of
the fruits of the toil of all.
“The Saint-Simonians reject this equal division of property, which
would constitute in their eyes a more reprehensible act of violence, a
more revolting injustice, than the present unequal division, which was
effected in the first place by the force of arms, by conquest.
“For they believe in the natural inequality of men, and regard this
inequality as the very basis of association, as the indispensable
condition of social order.
“They reject the system of community of goods, for this would be a
manifest violation of the first of all the moral laws which it is their
mission to teach—viz., that in the future each one should rank according
to his capacity and be rewarded according to his works.
“But in virtue of this law they demand the abolition of all privileges
of birth, without exception, and consequently the destruction of
inheritance, the chief of these privileges, which to-day comprehends
all the others, and the effect of which is to leave to chance the
distribution of social privileges among a small number, and to condemn
the most numerous class to deprivation, to ignorance, to misery.
“They demand that land, capital, and all the instruments of labor should
become common property, and be so managed that each one’s portion should
correspond to his capacity and his reward to his labors.... Christianity
has released woman from servitude but has condemned her to religious,
political, and civil inferiority. The Saint-Simonians have announced her
emancipation, but they have not abolished the sacred law of marriage,
proclaimed by Christianity. On the contrary, they give a new sanctity to
this law.
“Like the Christians, they demand that one man should be united to one
woman, but they teach that the wife ought to be the equal of the husband,
and that, in accordance with the particular grace given to her sex by
God, she ought to be associated with him in the triple function of
temple, state, and family, in such a manner that the social individual
which has hitherto been man alone should hereafter be man and woman.[55]
“The religion of Saint-Simon is to put an end to this legal prostitution
which, under the name of marriage, consecrates frequently to-day a
monstrous union of devotion and egoism, of intelligence and ignorance, of
youth and decrepitude.”
The leaders of the Saint-Simonian religion were Enfantin and Bazard,
the Supreme Fathers. Rodrigues had been chosen by Saint-Simon as his
successor, but he generously ceded his position to them as his superiors,
in accordance with the rule that rank should be the measure of capacity.
The new faith gained a large number of adherents after the Revolution
of July, 1830.[56] Some of these became prominent afterwards, some of
them were then men of wealth and importance. The best known are perhaps
Buchez, who wrote a “Parliamentary History of the Revolution,” and was
President of the Constituent Assembly of 1830; Laurent, a distinguished
author and professor; Michel Chevalier, a civil engineer, since
celebrated as a writer and a political economist; Barrault, professor of
literature at the College of Sorèze, a dramatic author of distinction,
some of whose plays had been performed at the Théâtre Français, and
an orator of remarkable eloquence; Fournel, who had studied at the
Polytechnic and afterwards made a name as an engineer; Adolphe Blanqui,
who became an orthodox political economist, and wrote a “History of
Political Economy,” and Pierre Leroux,[57] who at a later period became
the exponent of Humanitarianism, a kind of Saint-Simonism modified and
tinctured with Hegelian philosophy, and under whose influence several of
Madame Sand’s works, as “Consuelo” and “La Comtesse de Rudolstadt,” were
written. Other men of more or less note, bankers, lawyers, merchants, and
particularly all kinds of engineers, joined them. The École Polytechnique
was ever their stronghold. De Lesseps, an engineer who has disturbed the
peace of many Americans, was also for a time connected with them.
Enfantin was, indeed, a strange man. It is scarcely comprehensible what
could have given him such power over men of ability, learning, wealth,
and shrewd business capacity. In commenting upon this circumstance, Mr.
Booth says: “He ruled despotically over their lives and thoughts; he
induced them ... to lead an ascetic life; he withdrew them from refined
society, and forced them to share in the coarsest toil; he compelled
them to undergo the humiliation of public confessions, and he received
from them the honors and the reverence accorded to a divine teacher.
Yet his intellectual powers were inferior to those possessed by some
of his disciples.” ... However, “his views were noble and generous and
he advocated them with all the sincerity of genuine enthusiasm and
the boldness of matchless self-confidence. It was natural that they
should fascinate young men of an ardent temperament, who burned with a
chivalrous desire to redress the evils of the world. They were readily
charmed by a prophet whose countenance was remarkable for its dignity and
repose, and whose affectionate disposition inspired them with boundless
confidence and fervor. It must be admitted also that both his religious
and political opinions contained a large amount of truth; but his vanity
has invested them with an appearance of absurdity, for he delighted
in fantastic dresses, in solemn processions, and imposing ceremonies;
and he exposed himself to the ridicule of the world by permitting his
disciples to speak to him of the majesty of his countenance and the
divine brightness of his smile.”[58] An absent follower writes to the
father, le Père, as they called him, from Corsica: “The kiss of my father
will give me power, and his eloquent voice; I have every confidence in
my father, for I am sure that he knows his children better than they
know themselves; why do I, nevertheless, tremble in going to him?” Other
expressions addressed to the father are too absurd, extravagant, and
impious to be quoted. Once, indeed, Enfantin rebuked the homage of his
disciples with the words: “No one of us is God: I am only a man.”
The Saint-Simonians in an early stage of their proselytism formed a
“Sacred College of Apostles,” consisting of six leaders. These chiefs
were Enfantin, Bazard, Buchez, Rodrigues, Laurent, and Rouen. The younger
and less influential disciples were organized as a subordinate order.
They established missions and bishoprics in Toulouse, Montpellier,
Sorèze, Lyons, in fact, in all parts of France, and also carried the new
gospel to foreign lands, as Belgium and Algeria. Paris was divided into
twelve districts and a male and a female missionary sent into each part.
They propagated their faith by numerous lectures and by the press. One
of their organs was called the _Globe_; its mottoes were: “Religion,
Science, Industry, Universal Association.
“The purpose of all social institutions ought to be the intellectual,
moral, and physical amelioration of the poorest and most numerous class.
“All privileges of birth, without exception, are abolished.
“To each one according to his capacity; to each capacity according to its
works.”
These mottoes are a good _résumé_ of their ideas.
The Saint-Simonians considered it necessary first to distinguish
themselves in marked manner by wearing a peculiar costume, afterwards to
separate themselves from the world by retiring to a sort of monastery.
Their costume consisted of blue cloth. Bazard and Enfantin wore light
blue, the other adherents a darker shade, according to rank, the lowest
members of the hierarchy being clad in royal blue. At a later period
a still more peculiar costume was adopted, which embraced a waistcoat
so contrived that no one could either put it on or take it off without
assistance; and this symbolized the dependence of man upon his fellow-man.
In 1831 a schism took place in the Saint-Simonian church. Enfantin’s
views regarding love and marriage were becoming constantly less and less
orthodox. His belief in the substantial correctness of the impulses of
the flesh led him to advocate, first, divorce, then views which can
fairly be called free-love. In this he departed widely from the doctrines
of the earlier and purer Saint-Simonism. A violent controversy followed
the announcement of Enfantin’s later opinions. The debates lasted day
and night for some time. They were all terribly in earnest. Young men
were borne from the room unconscious and some even lost their reason. The
matter did not terminate until Bazard and a large number of disciples,
including Mde. Bazard, M. Fournel and his wife, and Pierre Leroux,
withdrew from the association. To the credit of the women connected with
the Saint-Simonians, it should be stated that not one of them remained
with Enfantin.
Enfantin and Bazard had been the two fathers, and in their assemblies
Bazard had had a seat beside Enfantin. His chair was left vacant, as an
appeal to some female Messiah to come forward and occupy it, and form
together with Enfantin the _couple-prêtre_, the true priest man-woman.
As man and woman together formed one unit, the supreme priesthood could
only be perfect when composed of both. Enfantin’s beauty and wonderful
magnetism appear to have attracted numerous candidates, but the right one
never appeared. The perfect priest remained an unrealized dream.
After the schism Enfantin and a number of his disciples decided to come
out from the world, and for this purpose retired to Ménilmontant, where
Enfantin owned a house surrounded by a large garden. Here forty or fifty
of the faithful led a most strange life. It was one of severe asceticism.
Husbands separated from their wives for the sake of their religion, after
they had assumed the monastic dress. Sometimes the wives shared the
enthusiasm of the disciples; sometimes they murmured. One of them, who
finds the trial a hard one and yet appreciates her husband’s motives,
writes to him: “On Wednesday, I shall see you assume the dress of an
apostle, and then I can give you but a sisterly kiss. I will endeavor
to collect all my strength to hear you renounce me as a wife and your
Amelia as child. Such a proceeding requires an energy which I trust I
shall possess. Receive the tender farewell of her who will soon no longer
be able to subscribe herself—your Amelia.” To a friend she writes: “I am
sensible of the aims to which his noble and generous heart leads him,
when he separates himself from me. This knowledge is sufficient for me
to accept the sacrifice, and, after all, what is my grief, what are my
tears, when the enfranchisement of the world is concerned?”
As they held the performance of labor to be a religious act, they
employed no servants, and at Ménilmontant you might have been edified
by the sight of a man scrubbing the floor, who has since attained a
world-wide fame. They were generally cheered in their work by music.
Another part of their creed laid stress upon mental development, and we
find at the monastery instruction given in astronomy, geology, physical
geography, music, and civil engineering. Any one might well be proud to
have had such instructors as those who taught. To mention only one, the
teacher of music was David, the composer of the operas “Lalla Rookh,”
“Désert,” and “Herculanum.”
It is not necessary in this place to describe the strange and fantastic
life by which the apostles endeavored to attain a more elevated spiritual
state, reverencing Saint-Simon and Enfantin as sacred messengers of
God. They were finally dispersed by dissensions, the desire of some
to return to their families, financial difficulties, and external
persecution. Enfantin and Chevalier were imprisoned for holding illegal
assemblies. The faith, however, continued to prosper for a few years, and
missionaries were still sent out to teach the New Christianity. One of
the latest expeditions was headed by Enfantin himself after his release
from prison. Its aim was to connect the Red Sea with the Mediterranean.
De Lesseps was associated with them in this, but he finally separated
from them, as they could not agree upon the engineering plans. Enfantin
and other Saint-Simonians continued to advocate the project and scouted
Stephenson’s assertion that it was impossible. This may seem at first
like strange missionary work, but it does not, when you remember that to
them all labor for the advancement of humanity was sacred. It is owing
to Enfantin’s persistent endeavors that the Suez Canal was built. When
Enfantin heard that De Lesseps was going on with the canal alone, it was
thought that he might feel injured. He exhibited, however, a truly noble
spirit, and simply remarked that, “Provided the work which I have brought
into notice, and caused to be studied as highly useful to the moral and
material interests of humanity, be executed, I will be the first to bless
him by whom it is executed. Undoubtedly, it is but just that posterity
should know that the initiation of that gigantic enterprise was taken by
those whom the Old World could recognize only as Utopists, dreamers, or
fools.”[59]
The Saint-Simonians never reunited after the Egyptian expedition. A
considerable number were able to make themselves useful in that country
on account of their engineering skill. Mehemet Ali, the viceroy,
recognized their talents and employed them in numerous ways. One
received a commission to found a Polytechnic School at Cairo, another
was placed at the head of a school of artillery, two others were
appointed professors in the school at Kauka, and several medical men
received positions in the hospital. David delighted the Alexandrians with
concerts, and Barrault charmed them by his eloquent lectures. An Egyptian
paper declared of Barrault that “Alexandria, since the best days of its
glory, has never heard within its walls a voice so eloquent or a poetry
of language so harmonious.”[60]
The most of these Saint-Simonians returned to France, and, like many of
their former associates who had not left their native soil, acquired
positions of prominence and influence.
Enfantin himself received a post as director of the Lyons Railway and
became wealthy. He never lost faith in Saint-Simonism, but thought that
as much had been done for the system as was then possible, since its
doctrines had been proclaimed far and near, and were slowly leavening the
mass of society.
Many of the principles taught by the Saint-Simonians must receive our
hearty approbation. We sympathize with their endeavors to improve the
lot of the poor and oppressed, and assent to them when they preach the
dignity and sacredness of labor, the reverence due woman, and the duty of
maintaining peace between nation and nation. When Chevalier proposes that
the armies of Europe, “instead of being applied to the destruction of
property and life, should be employed upon works of public utility,”[61]
we are reminded that the coming of a time has been prophesied when
“nations shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into
pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more.”[62]
Saint-Simon has ceased to be the prophet of a religious school, but he
did not sacrifice life and happiness in vain. He still lives in the lives
and actions of men, and to-day possesses an historical importance which
has been well expressed in these words:
“Saint-Simon first taught us to consider the history of labor and
property as an essential element of human development, and consequently
to investigate the history of society.
“He first discerned clearly the separation of the two great classes of
industrial society, and implanted bitter hatred in the consciousness of
the lower classes. Saint-Simon’s word that the party of the laborers
would be formed, has been fulfilled. Saint-Simonism is the first
expression of the proletariat.
“He first represented social reform as the only true function of
government.
“Finally, he first brought forward the question of inheritance, the
question upon which the entire future of the social form of Europe will
rest during the next two generations.
“Thus through Saint-Simon is society, in its power, its elements, and
its contradictions, for the first time half understood, half vaguely
conjectured. He is the boundary of a new era in France. He left the
beaten track and laid down his life in discovering and opening for
society a new path. In it we have as yet taken only a few steps, and no
human eye is able to discern the goal whither we are tending.”[63]