feature of the Revolution in France which imparts to that historic occurrence a physiognomy not shared by its American forerunner, and when properly appreciated, elucidates both.
The utterances of the great figures in the French Revolution, of its great apostles, bear for this reason interesting comparison with their American kindreds. Both sets bourgeois; both sets, accordingly, resting on the private ownership of the means of production, did nevertheless present very different aspects. With the former, who, living in a densely populated country, with natural opportunities already preempted, the declarations concerning the "Rights of Man," or "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," were an exact reflex of their material surrounding: the proletariat was not included in the "Rights of Man" or in "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"; with the latter, who, finding themselves in an immense country, barely populated and natural opportunities accessible to all, their utterances included the whole human race.
In the domain of sociology, no less than in that of biology, "comparative anatomy" is priceless. A careful reading of Mr. Bax' "Story of the French Revolution" — for the very reason that it is synoptical — will not only enrich the mind on the event that it describes, but it will suggest home studies that enlarge the mind.
Daniel De Leon.
New York, Oct. 1, 1902.
