< prev
next>
146
THE EGO AND HIS OWN
bourgeoisie is ruled by the British spirit of legality.
An assembly of provincial estates, e. g., is ever recall-
ing that its authorization goes only so and so far, and
that it is called at all only through favor and can be
thrown out again through disfavor. It is always re-
minding itself of its--vocation. It is certainly not
to be denied that my father begot me ; but, now that
I am once begotten, surely his purposes in begetting
do not concern me a bit and, whatever he may have
called me to, I do what I myself will. Therefore even
a called assembly of estates, the French assembly in
the beginning of the Revolution, recognized quite
rightly that it was independent of the caller. It ex-
isted, and would have been stupid if it did not avail
itself of the right of existence, but fancied itself de-
pendent as on a father. The called one no longer
has to ask " what did the caller want when he created
me ?" but " what do I want after I have once fol-
lowed the call ?" Not the caller, not the constituents,
not the charter according to which their meeting was
called out, nothing will be to him a sacred, inviolable
power. He is authorized for everything that is in his
power; he will know no restrictive " authorization,"
will not want to be loyal. This, if any such thing
could be expected from chambers at all, would give a
completely egoistic chamber, severed from all navel-
string and without consideration. But chambers are
always devout, and therefore one cannot be surprised
if so much half-way or undecided, i. e. hypocritical,
" egoism " parades in them.
The members of the estates are to remain within the
limits that are traced for them by the charter, by the
MEN OF THE OLD TIME AND THE NEW 147
king's will, and the like. If they will not or can not
do that, then they are to " step out." What dutiful
man could act otherwise, could put himself, his con-
viction, and his will as the first thing? who could be
so immoral as to want to assert himself, even if the
body corporate and everything should go to ruin over
it? People keep carefully within the limits of their
authorization ; of course one must remain within the
limits of his power anyhow, because no one can do
more than he can. " My power, or, if it be so, pow-
erlessness, be my sole limit, but authorizations
only restraining--precepts ? Should I profess this
all-subversive view ? No, I am a--law-abiding
citizen ! "
The commonalty professes a morality which is most
closely connected with its essence. The first demand
of this morality is to the effect that one should carry
on a solid business, an honorable trade, lead a moral
life. Immoral, to it, is the sharper, the demirep, the
thief, robber, and murderer, the gamester, the penni-
less man without a situation, the frivolous man. The
doughty commoner designates the feeling against these
" immoral " people as his " deepest indignation."
All these lack settlement, the solid quality of business,
a solid, seemly life, a fixed income, etc. ; in short, they
belong, because their existence does not rest on a
secure basis, to the dangerous " individuals or isolated
persons," to the dangerous prolŽtariat ; they are " in-
dividual bawlers " who offer no " guarantee " and
have " nothing to lose," and so nothing to risk. The
forming of family ties, e. g., binds a man: he who is
bound furnishes security, can be taken hold of; not