Article #360-2 | Gutenberg Articles

Excerpt

Excerpt from What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government, by P.-J. Proudhon

"After those who write letters in performance of a disagreeable duty,
and almost side by side with them in point of insignificance, I should
put those who write in a manner wholly external, wholly superficial,
devoted only to flattery, lavishing praise like gold, without counting
it; and those also who weigh every word, who reply formally and
pompously, with a view to fine phrases and effects. They exchange words
only, and choose them solely for their brilliancy and show. You think
it is you, individually, to whom they speak; but they are addressing
themselves in your person to the four corners of Europe. Such letters
are empty, and teach as nothing but theatrical execution and the
favorite pose of their writers.

"I will not class among the latter the more prudent and sagacious
authors who, when writing to individuals, keep one eye on posterity.
We know that many who pursue this method have written long, finished,
charming, flattering, and tolerably natural letters. Beranger furnishes
us with the best example of this class.

"Proudhon, however, is a man of entirely different nature and habits.
In writing, he thinks of nothing but his idea and the person whom he
addresses: ad rem et ad hominem. A man of conviction and doctrine, to
write does not weary him; to be questioned does not annoy him. When
approached, he cares only to know that your motive is not one of futile
curiosity, but the love of truth; he assumes you to be serious, he
replies, he examines your objections, sometimes verbally, sometimes
in writing; for, as he remarks, 'if there be some points which
correspondence can never settle, but which can be made clear by
conversation in two minutes, at other times just the opposite is the
case: an objection clearly stated in writing, a doubt well expressed,
which elicits a direct and positive reply, helps things along more than
ten hours of oral intercourse!' In writing to you he does not hesitate
to treat the subject anew; he unfolds to you the foundation and
superstructure of his thought: rarely does he confess himself
defeated--it is not his way; he holds to his position, but admits the
breaks, the variations, in short, the EVOLUTION of his mind. The history
of his mind is in his letters; there it must be sought.

Explanation

**Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from What is Property? by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon**

This passage is from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s (1809–1865) What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government (1840), a foundational anarchist and socialist text that critiques private property, authority, and bourgeois social structures. While the book is primarily a philosophical and economic treatise, this particular excerpt is meta-textual—it reflects on epistolary (letter-writing) styles and contrasts superficial, performative correspondence with Proudhon’s own direct, idea-driven, and dialogical approach.

Proudhon was not only a theorist but also an active correspondent, engaging in debates with contemporaries like Karl Marx (with whom he later clashed). This passage serves as both a critique of insincere intellectual exchange and a defense of his own method of engagement.

Breakdown of the Excerpt

1. Critique of Superficial and Performative Letter-Writing (First Paragraph)

Proudhon begins by dismissing three types of insincere or hollow correspondence:

"Those who write letters in performance of a disagreeable duty" → Letters written out of obligation, not genuine engagement. These are empty formalities, devoid of real thought or intention.
"Those who write in a manner wholly external, wholly superficial, devoted only to flattery" → Syophantic letters, where praise is lavished without sincerity, like "gold" spent carelessly. The writer is not engaging with the recipient as an individual but performing for an audience.
"Those who weigh every word, who reply formally and pompously, with a view to fine phrases and effects" → Overly stylized, rhetorical letters, where the writer prioritizes aesthetic brilliance over substance. These letters are theatrical, meant to impress rather than communicate.

Proudhon condemns these as "empty", serving only to display the writer’s ego ("addressing themselves in your person to the four corners of Europe"). The recipient is not the real audience—the public is. This is a critique of bourgeois intellectual posturing, where ideas are performances rather than genuine exchanges.

2. The "Prudent and Sagacious" Writers (Second Paragraph)

Proudhon exempts a slightly better class of writers—those who write to individuals but keep "one eye on posterity." These authors are strategic, crafting letters that are:

"Long, finished, charming, flattering, and tolerably natural"
Example given: Béranger (Pierre-Jean de Béranger, a popular French songwriter known for his witty, politically engaged but accessible works).

Unlike the first group, these writers balance personal engagement with public appeal. Their letters are polished but not entirely hollow—they have some sincerity, even if they are conscious of their future readers.

**3. Proudhon’s Own Method: Ad Rem et Ad Hominem (Third Paragraph)**

Proudhon contrasts himself sharply with the previous groups. His approach is:

"Ad rem et ad hominem" (Latin: "to the thing and to the person") → He writes directly about the idea (ad rem) and directly to the person (ad hominem).
No performativity: He does not write for posterity, flattery, or rhetorical effect—only for truth and dialogue.
Open to serious engagement: He welcomes questions if they come from a "love of truth," not "futile curiosity."
Flexible in medium: He prefers whatever form best clarifies the issue—sometimes writing, sometimes conversation—depending on what works best for the debate.
Uncompromising but evolving: He rarely admits defeat but acknowledges the evolution of his thought. His letters document his intellectual development ("The history of his mind is in his letters").

This is a defense of intellectual honesty—Proudhon presents himself as a thinker who engages in real debate, not performative discourse.

Key Themes in the Excerpt

Authenticity vs. Performative Intellectualism
- Proudhon rejects hollow, self-aggrandizing writing in favor of direct, sincere exchange.
- This reflects his broader anarchist critique of bourgeois hypocrisy—where appearances matter more than substance.
Dialogue as a Tool for Truth
- Unlike monologic (one-way) writing, Proudhon values dialectical engagement—letters as part of a living debate.
- This aligns with his dialectical method in What is Property?, where he challenges and refines ideas through conflict.
The Evolution of Thought
- Proudhon’s letters document his intellectual growth, showing that ideas are not fixed but develop through struggle.
- This anticipates later anarchist and Marxist ideas of praxis—theory must be tested and revised in real engagement.
Critique of Bourgeois Communication
- The first two types of letter-writers represent bourgeois intellectual culture—where status, flattery, and performance dominate.
- Proudhon’s working-class background (he was a printer’s son) informs his disdain for elite posturing.

Literary and Rhetorical Devices

Classification & Contrast
- Proudhon categorizes different types of letter-writers, ranking them by sincerity.
- The shift from "insignificant" writers to his own method creates a hierarchy of intellectual honesty.
Metaphor & Imagery
- "Lavishing praise like gold, without counting it" → Flattery is wasted wealth, suggesting economic critique (gold = bourgeois excess).
- "Theatrical execution and the favorite pose" → Letters as performance, not communication.
Latin Phrase (Ad Rem et Ad Hominem)
- Reinforces his intellectual seriousness while distinguishing his method from rhetorical fluff.
Direct Address & Self-Referentiality
- Proudhon speaks to the reader while defining his own approach, making the text both descriptive and performative of his ideals.

Significance of the Passage

Methodological Defense
- Proudhon justifies his epistolary style as part of his philosophical project. His letters are not just personal but part of his theoretical work.
Anarchist Epistemology
- Knowledge, for Proudhon, comes from direct engagement, not authoritative pronouncements. This prefigures anarchist ideas of horizontal, dialogical learning.
Critique of Intellectual Elitism
- By rejecting performative writing, Proudhon challenges the bourgeois intellectual class, aligning with his anti-authoritarian politics.
Historical Context
- In 19th-century France, letter-writing was a key intellectual practice (e.g., Voltaire, Rousseau). Proudhon reclaims it for radical thought, stripping away aristocratic and bourgeois pretensions.

Conclusion: Proudhon’s Letter-Writing as Radical Practice

This excerpt is not just about letters—it’s about how ideas should circulate. Proudhon rejects the dominant modes of intellectual exchange (flattery, performance, posterity-chasing) in favor of raw, honest, and evolving debate. His approach reflects his anarchist principles:

No hierarchy in communication (he engages directly, not as a superior).
No fixed dogma (his thoughts evolve through struggle).
No separation between theory and practice (letters are both personal and political).

In a broader sense, this passage challenges us to consider how we engage with ideas—are we performing, or are we seeking truth through real dialogue? For Proudhon, the medium (the letter) is part of the revolutionary message.

Questions

Question 1

The passage’s distinction between Proudhon’s epistolary method and those of the "prudent and sagacious authors" (e.g., Béranger) is primarily structured around a contrast between:

A. the aesthetic refinement of language versus its philosophical depth.
B. the private intentions of the writer versus the public reception of the work.
C. the historical longevity of ideas versus their immediate rhetorical impact.
D. the performative dimensions of communication versus its dialogical potential.
E. the emotional sincerity of the writer versus the logical rigor of the argument.

Question 2

When Proudhon states that "the history of his mind is in his letters; there it must be sought," he implies that his correspondence functions as:

A. an autobiographical record intended to secure his legacy among future scholars.
B. a deliberate counterpoint to the ephemeral, oral debates of his contemporaries.
C. a strategic archive designed to preemptively refute his critics’ objections.
D. a dynamic site where intellectual evolution is both documented and enacted.
E. an unintentional byproduct of his reluctance to engage in face-to-face disputation.

Question 3

The phrase "ad rem et ad hominem" in the passage serves to:

A. underscore Proudhon’s commitment to tailoring his arguments to the intellectual capacities of his correspondents.
B. highlight a tension between abstract philosophical inquiry and the personal biases of his interlocutors.
C. signal a method that prioritizes direct engagement with both the subject matter and the individual recipient.
D. critique the tendency of his contemporaries to conflate objective analysis with ad hominem attacks.
E. justify his occasional use of rhetorical flourishes to persuade rather than merely inform.

Question 4

The passage’s critique of writers who "lavish praise like gold, without counting it" is most fundamentally a condemnation of:

A. the economic wastefulness inherent in bourgeois intellectual culture.
B. the superficiality of communication that privileges appearance over substantive exchange.
C. the moral corruption of flattery as a tool for social advancement.
D. the way performative language reinforces hierarchical power structures.
E. the inefficacy of excessive politeness in resolving philosophical disputes.

Question 5

Proudhon’s assertion that "an objection clearly stated in writing... helps things along more than ten hours of oral intercourse" suggests that he views written correspondence as uniquely capable of:

A. preserving the nuances of argumentation that are inevitably lost in spontaneous speech.
B. forcing interlocutors to articulate their positions with a precision that oral debate often lacks.
C. circumventing the emotional volatility that frequently derails face-to-face discussions.
D. creating a permanent, revisable record that facilitates cumulative intellectual progress.
E. exposing the intellectual laziness of those who rely on verbal wit rather than rigorous thought.

Solutions and Explanations

1) Correct answer: D

Why D is most correct: The passage contrasts two modes of communication: (1) performative (writing for effect, audience, or self-display, as in the first two groups) and (2) dialogical (Proudhon’s ad rem et ad hominem approach, which engages directly with ideas and persons). The "prudent and sagacious authors" (e.g., Béranger) still retain a performative element ("one eye on posterity"), whereas Proudhon rejects this entirely in favor of genuine exchange. This aligns with his anarchist critique of hierarchical, bourgeois intellectual culture, where communication is often a power performance rather than a collaborative pursuit of truth.